State v. Bertheol

6 Blackf. 474
CourtIndiana Supreme Court
DecidedNovember 15, 1843
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 6 Blackf. 474 (State v. Bertheol) 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.

Bluebook
State v. Bertheol, 6 Blackf. 474 (Ind. 1843).

Opinion

Dewey, J.

This was a prosecution for a nuisance. The indictment charges that the defendant kept “ a public, common, ill-governed, and disorderly liquor and store house” in Shel-byville, and in the same and along the street adjoining thereto, caused to frequent and come together persons of evil name and dissolute conversation; and permitted them, for lucre, to be and remain, as well in the night as in the day time, in and about the said house, “ drinlding, tippling, carousing, swearing, cursing, hallooing, quarreling, and misbehaving themselves, to the great damage, disturbance, and common nuisance,” &c. On the motion of the defendant, the Court quashed the indictment.

The question is, whether the matters alleged in the indictment constitute a public nuisance ?

Our statute prescribes the punishment for a common nuisance, but it does not define the offense. "We must, therefore, refer to the common law to learn in what it consists. Blaoh-stone describes a common nuisance as being “any thing that worketh hurt, inconvenience, or damage” to the public. 3 Comm., 215. And he classes disorderly inns, alehouses, gaming houses, “and the like,” under this head. Common stages for rope dancers and mismanaged theatres are *nuisances, because their tendency is to encourage idleness, to corrupt the public morals, and to draw together numbers of disorderly persons to the annoyance of the neiglw bourhood. 5 Bac. Abr., 147. 3o, making a great noise in the night with a speaking trumpet has been held to be an indictable nuisance. Rex v. Smith, 2 Strange, 704. It is impossible not to perceive that a common tippling-house, in and about which idle and dissolute persons are encouraged to assemble, and are permitted to drink, swear, quarrel, and shout, by night as well as by day, has the same evil tendencies as the nuisances [510]*510referred to. We think it should be ranked in the same class with them, and that the Circuit Court erred in quashing the indictment.

A. A. Hammond, for the State. 8. Major, for the defendant.

Per Ouriam.—The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded, &c.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Price v. State
622 N.E.2d 954 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1993)
Price v. State
600 N.E.2d 103 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1992)
Territory v. Scully
22 Haw. 618 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1915)
Sopher v. State
81 N.E. 913 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1907)
State v. Ayers
88 P. 653 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1907)
Ledgerwood v. State
33 N.E. 631 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1893)
Moody v. Board of Supervisors
46 Barb. 659 (New York Supreme Court, 1866)
Hackney v. State
8 Ind. 494 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1857)
Beebe v. State
6 Ind. 501 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1855)
State v. Mullikin
8 Blackf. 260 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1846)
Bloomhuff v. State
8 Blackf. 205 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1846)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
6 Blackf. 474, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-bertheol-ind-1843.