Hill v. Pierson

• Decision Date: 19 June 1895
• Citation: 45 Neb. 503,63 N.W. 835
• Parties: HILL v. PIERSON.
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

45 Neb. 503

63 N.W. 835

HILL

v.PIERSON.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

June 19, 1895.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. A place kept for gambling purposes is a public nuisance.

2. A public nuisance, criminal in its nature, will be enjoined at the instance of a private party only upon a showing of some special injury suffered by him aside from that suffered in common with the remainder of the public.

3. The evidence examined, and held to sustain the conclusions of the trial court.

Appeal from district court, Douglas county; Ferguson, Judge.

Action by Annis L. Hill against Charles O. Pierson to abate a nuisance. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.J. W. West, for appellant.

Jno. L. Webster, for appellee.

HARRISON, J.

June 9, 1893, the plaintiff commenced an action in the district court of Douglas county in which the petition filed, or the portion we need notice, read as follows: “The plaintiff for cause of action states: (1) That on or about the 17th day of December, A. D. 1892, one Frank A. Kemp was the absolute owner in fee simple of the following described property in Douglas county, Nebraska, to wit: ‘The west twenty-two feet of the east one-half of lot four in block one hundred and twenty in the original city of Omaha, county and state aforesaid, said property being known as number “1321 Douglas Street,” in said city;’ and thereupon, to wit, on the date aforesaid, said Kemp entered into a lease in writing for the premises aforesaid with the defendant, Charles O. Pierson, which leasing was for the term commencing on the first day of January, A. D. 1893, and ending on the thirty-first day of December, A. D. 1896, a copy of which lease is hereunto attached, marked ‘Exhibit A,’ and made a part of this petition. (2) That thereupon the said defendant, Charles O. Pierson, entered in and upon the said premises as the tenant of him, the said Frank A. Kemp. (3) That thereafter, to wit, on or about the ______ day of ______, A. D. 18-, the said Frank A. Kemp, for a valuable consideration, did grant, bargain, sell, and convey the premises aforesaid to this plaintiff, by a good and sufficient warranty deed, through and by which this plaintiff became the absolute owner in fee simple of the premises aforesaid, taking the said real estate free and clear of all incumbrances save only the lease aforesaid; and thereupon the said Charles O. Pierson did accept and has accepted this plaintiff as landlord of the premises aforesaid, and has paid rent for the use and occupation of the said premises to this plaintiff. (4) The plaintiff further alleges that the said defendant is maintaining a nuisance in and upon the said premises, which nuisance consists in this, to wit: That the said defendant is using the said premises as a gambling place, and is keeping and maintaining thereon and therein gambling tables, and is maintaining thereon and therein a faro bank, and is maintaining and carrying on thereon and therein games of chance, known as ‘keno,’ ‘roulette,’ ‘hazard,’ and various other and sundry games of chance, the technical names of which are to this plaintiff unknown. (5) The plaintiff further alleges that the keeping and maintaining upon and in the premises aforesaid of the nuisance as aforesaid has brought the premises aforesaid into ill repute, and, if permitted to be maintained and carried on in and upon the said premises, the plaintiff will become subject to statutory liabilities, which will bring upon her great and irreparable injuries, and will subject her to public scandal and disgrace. (6) The plaintiff further alleges that the keeping and maintaining of the nuisance aforesaid in and upon the said premises is a great and irreparable injury to the plaintiff's said property, from the nature and character of which injury redress at law would be uncertain and inadequate, and the damages resulting therefrom impossible of ascertainment. * * * (7) The plaintiff further alleges that the defendant, for the purpose of more effectually carrying on and maintaining the said nuisance in and upon the said premises, is about to alter and rebuild the interior part of said building by changing the partitions and stairways therein contained, so that the said building shall be cut up into divers and sundry secret passages, stairways, and rooms, and is about to cut and alter the water pipes, sewer pipes, and gas pipes and connections thereof in and upon the said building, to the great and irreparable injury of the plaintiff and her said property, and, from the nature and character of said property and building, such alterations,...