State v. Tabler, No. 5,492.
| Docket Nº | No. 5,492. |
| Citation | 72 N.E. 1039, 34 Ind.App. 393 |
| Case Date | January 06, 1905 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Indiana |
34 Ind.App. 393
72 N.E. 1039
STATE
v.
TABLER et al.
No. 5,492.
Appellate Court of Indiana.
Jan. 6, 1905.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Harrison County; C. W. Cook, Judge.
Harriet Tabler and another were indicted for maintaining a public nuisance. From an order quashing the indictment, the state appeals. Transferred from Supreme Court. Reversed.
C. W. Miller, Atty. Gen., J. H. Luckett, G. W. Self, William Ridley, R. S. Kirkham, W. C. Geake, C. C. Hadley, and L. G. Rothschild, for the State. Stotsenburg & Weathers, C. C. Jordan, and E. H. Breeden, for appellees.
COMSTOCK, C. J.
Appellees were indicted for maintaining a public nuisance. A motion to quash was sustained by the trial court, and from that ruling appellant appeals.
The indictment charges that the appellees, Harriet and James Tabler, on the 1st of August, 1902, at Harrison county and state of Indiana, near unto the dwelling and business houses of divers inhabitants of the town of Corydon, in said county and state, unlawfully made, erected, set up, and arranged, and did cause and procure to be made, erected, arranged, and set up, in a certain room and building in said town of Corydon (describing the room and building), a certain partition, elevator, screens, curtains, revolving waiters, screen sash, blind door, blind window, paraphernalia, and other devices for the purpose of unlawfully selling and bartering and giving away intoxicating liquors in less quantities than five gallons at a time, and for the purpose of conducting unlawfully a saloon in said room and building; that they did unlawfully, at said date, and injuriously, maintain and permit, and from thenceforth up to and including the time of the making of this presentment do maintain, permit, and operate, in said room and building in said town, the said partition, elevator, screens, etc., for the purpose of unlawfully and illegally selling, bartering, and giving away intoxicating liquors in less quantities than five gallons, and for the purpose of unlawfully conducting a saloon; that, by reason of said partition, elevator, screens, etc., intoxicating liquors, in less quantities than five gallons at a time, are sold, bartered, and given away in said room and building, and have been so sold, bartered, and given away since the 1st of August, 1902, including Sundays and legal holidays, up to and including the time of the making of this presentment; said sales were made with the knowledge and consent of said defendants; that they have absolute control over said room in which said devices before described are located, and in which said illegal business was conducted; that said sale of intoxicating liquors can be made with impunity, and said saloon business can be conducted...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Keefer v. State, No. 21,609.
...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 St......
-
Keefer v. State, 21,609
...designates the class of prohibited acts. Gillett, Crim. Law (2d ed.) § 640; Burk v. State (1867), 27 Ind. 430; State v. Tabler (1905), 34 Ind.App. 393, 396, 397, 107 Am. St. 256, 72 N.E. 1039, and cases cited; Russell v. State supra. It was said in the case of State v. Tabler, supra: "A nui......
-
People v. Simmons , No. 18657.
...pig’ is used in common parlance for, and is synonymous with, ‘blind tiger’ (8 Corpus Juris, 1123; Standard Dict.; State v. Tabler, 34 Ind. App. 393, 72 N. E. 1039,107 Am. St. Rep. 256), which term has been defined as meaning ‘a place where intoxicants are sold on the sly’ (City of Shrevepor......
-
State v. Reichman
...such a place to be a public nuisance is wise and salutary." Legg v. Anderson, 116 Ga. 401, 42 S. E. 720. See. also, State v. Tabler, 34 Ind. App. 393, 72 N. E. 1039, 107 Am. St. Rep. It is said, however, that the act declaring a saloon a nuisance provided the method by which such nuisances ......
-
Keefer v. State, No. 21,609.
...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 St......
-
Keefer v. State, 21,609
...designates the class of prohibited acts. Gillett, Crim. Law (2d ed.) § 640; Burk v. State (1867), 27 Ind. 430; State v. Tabler (1905), 34 Ind.App. 393, 396, 397, 107 Am. St. 256, 72 N.E. 1039, and cases cited; Russell v. State supra. It was said in the case of State v. Tabler, supra: "A nui......
-
People v. Simmons , No. 18657.
...pig’ is used in common parlance for, and is synonymous with, ‘blind tiger’ (8 Corpus Juris, 1123; Standard Dict.; State v. Tabler, 34 Ind. App. 393, 72 N. E. 1039,107 Am. St. Rep. 256), which term has been defined as meaning ‘a place where intoxicants are sold on the sly’ (City of Shrevepor......
-
State v. Reichman
...such a place to be a public nuisance is wise and salutary." Legg v. Anderson, 116 Ga. 401, 42 S. E. 720. See. also, State v. Tabler, 34 Ind. App. 393, 72 N. E. 1039, 107 Am. St. Rep. It is said, however, that the act declaring a saloon a nuisance provided the method by which such nuisances ......