Keefer v. State, No. 21,609.

Docket NºNo. 21,609.
Citation174 Ind. 588, 92 N.E. 656
Case DateOctober 12, 1910
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

174 Ind. 588
92 N.E. 656

KEEFER
v.
STATE.

No. 21,609.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Oct. 12, 1910.


Appeal from Circuit Court, Huntington County; Samuel E. Cook, Judge.

Henry Keefer was convicted of maintaining a nuisance, and he appeals. Affirmed.

[92 N.E. 657]


Lesh & Lesh, for appellant.
James Bingham, Alexander G. Cavins, Edward M. White, and William H. Thompson, for the State.

MONKS, C. J.

Appellant was convicted before a justice of the peace on an affidavit charging him with maintaining a nuisance by blasting stone in his stone quarry, and thereby casting rock upon the surrounding properties and highways. He appealed to the court below, where he was again convicted.

Appellant first insists that the court erred in overruling his motion to quash the affidavit. Section 2440, Burns' Ann. St. 1908. provides that “every person who shall erect, or continue and maintain any public nuisance, to the injury of any part of the citizens of this state, shall, on conviction, be fined not exceeding one hundred dollars.” While said section does not specifically define the crime of nuisance, the courts will define the crime by the aid of the common-law definitions, and the import of the language used. Sopher v. State, 169 Ind. 177, 181, 81 N. E. 913, 14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 172;Ledgerwood v. State, 134 Ind. 81, 89, 33 N. E. 631, and cases cited; State v. Berdetta, 73 Ind. 185, 38 Am. Rep. 117. It has also been held that section 291, Burns' Ann. St. 1908, which reads as follows: “Whatever is injurious to health, or indecent, or offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to the free use of the property, so as essentially to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property, is a nuisance, and the subject of an action”-may be looked to for that purpose. Hackney v. State, 8 Ind. 494;Moses v. State, 58 Ind. 185;Russell v. State, 32 Ind. App. 243, 245, 69 N. E. 482; Gillett's Criminal Law (2d Ed.) § 640. The term “public nuisance,” as used in the statutes providing a punishment for maintaining a public nuisance, has a well-defined legal meaning, and sufficiently designates the class of prohibited acts. Gillett's Criminal Law (2d Ed.) § 640; Burk v. State. 27 Ind. 430;State v. Tabler, 34 Ind. App. 393, 396, 397, 72 N. E. 1039, 107 Am. St. Rep. 256, and cases cited; Russell v. State, 32 Ind. App. 243, 245, 69 N. E. 482. As was said in State v. Tabler, 34 Ind. App. 393, 397, 72 N. E. 1039, 1040, 107 Am. St. Rep. 256, “A nuisance is a public nuisance if it annoys such part of the public as necessarily comes in contact with it.” It is evident that said section 2440, supra, covers every case of nuisance within its provisions, except such as...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 practice notes
  • Price v. State, No. 49A02-9109-CR-378
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 14 Septiembre 1992
    ..."imminent violence" or "imminent breach of the peace", does carry with it the climate of public disorder. Thus in Keefer v. State (1910) 174 Ind. 588, 92 N.E. 656, blasting in a stone quarry which threw rocks and debris upon surrounding land resulted in affirmance of a public nuisance convi......
  • Boos v. State , No. 22,548.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 30 Abril 1914
    ...the common law, and the usages and general practice and pleading under the Code, except as modified by the latter. Keefer v. State (1910) 174 Ind. 588, 92 N. E. 656. It is held that a motion in arrest of judgment in a criminal case waives a motion for a new trial, in analogy to the rule in ......
  • Scott Const. Co. v. Cobb, No. 12910.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 26 Enero 1928
    ...property, was indictable at common law as a nuisance, and it is likewise indictable in this state under our statute. Keefer v. State, 174 Ind. 588, 92 N. E. 656. For a well-considered case on the liability of an employer for damages by blasting where the work was done by an independent cont......
  • Keefer v. State, 21,609
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 12 Octubre 1910
    ...92 N.E. 656 174 Ind. 588 Keefer v. The State of Indiana No. 21,609Supreme Court of IndianaOctober 12, From Huntington Circuit Court; Samuel E. Cook, Judge. Prosecution by The State of Indiana against Henry Keefer. From a judgment of conviction, defendant appeals. Affirmed. Lesh & Lesh, for ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 cases
  • Price v. State, No. 49A02-9109-CR-378
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 14 Septiembre 1992
    ..."imminent violence" or "imminent breach of the peace", does carry with it the climate of public disorder. Thus in Keefer v. State (1910) 174 Ind. 588, 92 N.E. 656, blasting in a stone quarry which threw rocks and debris upon surrounding land resulted in affirmance of a public nuisance convi......
  • Boos v. State , No. 22,548.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 30 Abril 1914
    ...the common law, and the usages and general practice and pleading under the Code, except as modified by the latter. Keefer v. State (1910) 174 Ind. 588, 92 N. E. 656. It is held that a motion in arrest of judgment in a criminal case waives a motion for a new trial, in analogy to the rule in ......
  • Scott Const. Co. v. Cobb, No. 12910.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 26 Enero 1928
    ...property, was indictable at common law as a nuisance, and it is likewise indictable in this state under our statute. Keefer v. State, 174 Ind. 588, 92 N. E. 656. For a well-considered case on the liability of an employer for damages by blasting where the work was done by an independent cont......
  • Keefer v. State, 21,609
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 12 Octubre 1910
    ...92 N.E. 656 174 Ind. 588 Keefer v. The State of Indiana No. 21,609Supreme Court of IndianaOctober 12, From Huntington Circuit Court; Samuel E. Cook, Judge. Prosecution by The State of Indiana against Henry Keefer. From a judgment of conviction, defendant appeals. Affirmed. Lesh & Lesh, for ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT