Baugh v. State
This text of 14 Ind. 29 (Baugh v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Information for keeping a nuisance.
It is contended that there is no statute on which the information can rest. Ingersoll v. The State, 11 Ind. R. 464, decides otherwise.
The information charges that “on the first of March, 1857, at, &c., Michael Baugh erected, and continually from thence hitherto, continued, maintained, and kept,” &c.
It is insisted that the Court erred in permitting any evidence of the existence of the nuisance, except on the said first day of March. This is frivolous. The information, [30]*30to the common understanding, plainly enough charges a continuous nuisance. The word “has” may be supplied, if the counsel thinks it will make the pleading more certain.
The judgment is affirmed with costs.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
14 Ind. 29, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baugh-v-state-ind-1860.