Terre Haute Brewing Co. v. State , No. 21,027.
| Docket Nº | No. 21,027. |
| Citation | 82 N.E. 81, 169 Ind. 242 |
| Case Date | October 31, 1907 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Indiana |
169 Ind. 242
82 N.E. 81
TERRE HAUTE BREWING CO.
v.
STATE.
No. 21,027.
Supreme Court of Indiana.
Oct. 31, 1907.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Owen County; H. H. Lee, Special Judge.
The Terre Haute Brewing Company was indicted for maintaining a public nuisance, and appeals. Reversed.
[82 N.E. 82]
James R. Miller, N. A. Whittaker, and Oscar Matthews, for appellant. James Bingham, Atty. Gen., for the State.
MONTGOMERY, J.
Appellant was convicted of erecting and maintaining a public nuisance. It is charged that the trial court erred in overruling appellant's motions (1) to quash the indictment, (2) for a new trial, (3) in arrest of judgment, and (4) to modify the judgment.
The indictment is in two counts, differing only in the fact that the second describes the premises with particularity. The first count, omitting the formal parts, is as follows: “That one, the Terre Haute Brewing Company, a corporation, and George Teagarden, late of said county and state aforesaid, did then and there, and on divers other days before and since said time, up to the date of making this presentment, unlawfully erect, continue, use, and maintain a certain building at said county, to wit, on West Franklin street, commonly known as Railroad street, at *** in the town of Spencer, said county and state, at, near, and among the dwelling houses and residences of many and divers inhabitants of said town, which said building is so erected, continued, used, and maintained by the defendants as a pretended wholesale house or barrel house for the unlawful sale of beer, and its delivery, distribution, and consumption by persons not retailers of such liquor, and which said building, and the transaction of the business aforesaid as there so done, occasions noisome and offensive smells, becomes injurious to the health, comfort, and property of the individuals being and living at, near, and about such property, and to the public, and by hallooing, swearing, drinking on such premises permitted by the defendants, and by lewd, lascivious acts of immorality on such premises and in and about such building, all the fault and by the permission of the defendants, and by the loading, unloading, and delivery of beer for and on behalf and at the request of these defendants, whereby, by reason of said facts so set out and each of them, the property of the inhabitants there living is injured in value, their comfortable enjoyment of life prevented, and their health and the health and comfort of the public...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Arnold
...143, 32 S.W. 403; Bennett v. Commonwealth, 150 Ky. 604, 150 S.W. 806; Underwood v. State, 19 Ala. 532; Terre Haute Brewing Co. v. State, 169 Ind. 242, 82 N.E. 84; State v. Metsker, 169 Ind. 555, 83 N.E. 241; Hewitt v. State, 171 Ind. 283, 86 N.E. 63; State v. Beliveau, 114 Me. 477, 96 A. 77......
-
Williams v. State , No. 23190.
...ground of uncertainty. No more is required. Skelton v. State, 173 Ind. 462, 89 N. E. 860, 90 N. E. 897;Terre Haute Brewing Co. v. State, 169 Ind. 242, 82 N. E. 81;State v. Feagans, 148 Ind. 621, 48 N. E. 225;Funk v. State, 149 Ind. 338, 49 N. E. 266. [17] Appellant also insists that the tri......
-
Antioch Coal Co. v. Rockey , No. 2O,869.
...we have hereinbefore affirmed, as the work of these miners progressed, it became the duty of the mining boss, under the provisions of the [82 N.E. 81]statute, to see that all “loose coal, slate or rock overhead,” if any, in the room in question was carefully secured, and, if for any means s......
-
Myers v. Sell, No. 28366.
...Reversed in part and affirmed in part and remanded with instructions. GILKISON and EMMERT, JJ., dissenting. For dissenting opinion, see 82 N.E. 81. [81 N.E.2d 846]Appeal from Circuit Court, Newton County; Victor K. Roberts, Special judge.J. Edward Barce and Ralph Bower, both of Kentland, Th......
-
State v. Arnold
...143, 32 S.W. 403; Bennett v. Commonwealth, 150 Ky. 604, 150 S.W. 806; Underwood v. State, 19 Ala. 532; Terre Haute Brewing Co. v. State, 169 Ind. 242, 82 N.E. 84; State v. Metsker, 169 Ind. 555, 83 N.E. 241; Hewitt v. State, 171 Ind. 283, 86 N.E. 63; State v. Beliveau, 114 Me. 477, 96 A. 77......
-
Williams v. State , No. 23190.
...ground of uncertainty. No more is required. Skelton v. State, 173 Ind. 462, 89 N. E. 860, 90 N. E. 897;Terre Haute Brewing Co. v. State, 169 Ind. 242, 82 N. E. 81;State v. Feagans, 148 Ind. 621, 48 N. E. 225;Funk v. State, 149 Ind. 338, 49 N. E. 266. [17] Appellant also insists that the tri......
-
Antioch Coal Co. v. Rockey , No. 2O,869.
...we have hereinbefore affirmed, as the work of these miners progressed, it became the duty of the mining boss, under the provisions of the [82 N.E. 81]statute, to see that all “loose coal, slate or rock overhead,” if any, in the room in question was carefully secured, and, if for any means s......
-
Myers v. Sell, No. 28366.
...Reversed in part and affirmed in part and remanded with instructions. GILKISON and EMMERT, JJ., dissenting. For dissenting opinion, see 82 N.E. 81. [81 N.E.2d 846]Appeal from Circuit Court, Newton County; Victor K. Roberts, Special judge.J. Edward Barce and Ralph Bower, both of Kentland, Th......