State v. Pa. R. Co.

• Decision Date: 03 June 1913
• Citation: 87 A. 86,84 N.J.L. 550
• Parties: STATE v. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

87 A. 86

84 N.J.L. 550

STATE

v. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

June 3, 1913.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

The Pennsylvania Railroad Company was indicted for permitting a nuisance, and brings certiorari on motion to quash the indictments. Motion denied.

Argued February term, 1913, before TRENCHARD, PARKER, and VOORHEES, JJ.

Vredenburgh, Wall & Carey, of Jersey City, for prosecutor.

Pierre P. Garven, of Jersey City, for the State.

PARKER, J. The indictments are identical except as to dates, and charge that the prosecutor, "a corporation, late of the city of Jersey City, in the said county of Hudson, on the 1st day of June in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and ten and thence continuously from that day up to and including the day of the finding of this indictment, then and there being the owners of a certain railroad running through the city of Jersey City aforesaid, commonly known as the Pennsylvania Railroad, in the near neighborhood of divers public streets in the said city and county aforesaid, where divers good citizens are constantly passing and repassing and of divers dwelling houses in the city and county aforesaid inhabited and occupied by divers other good citizens aforesaid and within the jurisdiction of this court, on the days and times aforesaid, did unlawfully, negligently, unskillfully, and unnecessarily conduct a certain building commonly called a roundhouse, and did then and there conduct, drive, run, and move its locomotive engines over and along and upon said tracks of said railroad there at unseasonable hours in the morning and in the daytime and at late hours of the nights of the days aforesaid, by reason whereof divers noisome, unwholesome, and dense smoke and noxious, penetrating, and discoloring vapors and offensive odors were then and there on the said days and times emitted and issued out of and from the said locomotive engines and from said roundhouse in greater quantities than were required for the legitimate and proper use and operation of its railroad, so that the air on the several days and times aforesaid was thereby greatly filled and impregnated with said smokes, vapors, smells and stenches, and was rendered and became and was corrupted, offensive, and unwholesome, and that the good people of the said city in said state residing in the said dwelling houses near to the said railroad and said roundhouse on the several days and times aforesaid were and still are greatly annoyed, disturbed, and incommoded in the use, occupation, and enjoyment of their said dwelling houses, and greatly interrupted in the exercise and pursuit of their lawful business and transactions and deprived of their necessary sleep and rest and rendered and made in other respects uncomfortable, and thereby also the good people of the said state and all persons then and there passing and repassing near the same, contrary to the form of the statute," etc.

A similar indictment was tried in State v. Erie Railroad, 84 Atl. 698, without question as to its sufficiency, at least in this court.

The first point made is that "the indictments are uncertain and ambiguous, and do not set forth facts with clearness sufficient to identify the accusations, or to permit the defendants to prepare their defense." Specifically, it is argued that the defendant has numerous railroads running through Jersey City; but there is no evidence of this before us. Again, that the streets are not named or located, nor the location of the roundhouse stated, nor the engine specified, and that no facts are stated to show that the emission of smoke, etc., was unreasonable, nor are the hours claimed to be "unseasonable" specified, and that the defendant is required to meet general allegations covering every day of an extended period, without notice of which days are to be particularly selected in the evidence.

It is sufficient to say that these indictments seem to follow closely the recognized precedents. Nuisance being usually a continuing offense, the general allegations of time are proper. Bishop, Directions and Forms, §§ 81, 83. Generality in locating buildings and other landmarks is customary in an indictment for nuisance. Id. §§ 828, 829. These questions are substantially disposed of in State v. Uvalde Asphalt Co., 68 N J. Law, 512, 53 Atl. 299, where the matter is treated with some detail. As to the place where the nuisance was committed, it is generally sufficient if it be so stated as to be within the county where the indictment is found. Id. The common-law forms in 3 Chitty, Crim. Law, *642 et seq., are in consonance with this rule. The general allegation of "unseasonable hours" is supported by the precedents of indictments for keeping noisy dogs (Id. *647), pursuing the trade of a coppersmith (Id. *663) or a brazier (Id. *664). It is true that these precedents relate particularly to noises, but it is not perceived why the rest and sleep of the public may not also be disturbed by smoke and smells, which may of...