State v. Sullivan County Agricultural Society

42 N.E. 963, 14 Ind. App. 369, 1896 Ind. App. LEXIS 255
CourtIndiana Court of Appeals
DecidedFebruary 12, 1896
DocketNo. 1,722
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 42 N.E. 963 (State v. Sullivan County Agricultural Society) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Sullivan County Agricultural Society, 42 N.E. 963, 14 Ind. App. 369, 1896 Ind. App. LEXIS 255 (Ind. Ct. App. 1896).

Opinion

Davis, J.

This was an indictment in two counts against the Sullivan County Agricultural Society, under section 2173, R. S. 1894, for keeping a tenement for gaming.

The indictment was .quashed in the circuit court, and the State appeals.

Our criminal law is entirely statutory, and not of common law origin. Section 237, R. S. 1894; Beal v. State, 15 Ind. 378; Stephens v. State, 107 Ind. 185.

In this State a corporation cannot he indicted for a crime except as provided by statute. State v. Ohio, etc., R. W. Co., 23 Ind. 362.

Corporations may be prosecuted in this State for “erecting, continuing or maintaining a public nuisance, or for obstructing a public highway or navigable [370]*370stream.” Section 1970, R. S. 1894, and section 1754, R. S. 1894. State v. Baltimore, etc., R. R. Co., 120 Ind. 298.

Filed February 12, 1896.

In this case no charge is made that the appellee did anything that was injurious or offensive to some portion of the inhabitants of the State. Section 2153, R. S. 1894; State v. Houck, 73 Ind. 37.

It is not charged in either count of the indictment that any gaming was ever carried on, much less that it was carried on to such an extent as to make it a nuisance.

We apprehend that an agricultural society maybe prosecuted for keeping a tenement for gaming, provided it is carried on to such an extent as to make it a nuisance, notwithstanding the officers may be prosecuted for the violation of any of the provisions of section 2174, R. S. 1894, but this question is not before us.

In our opinion there was no error in sustaining the motion to quash the indictment.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Golden Guernsey Farms, Inc. v. State
63 N.E.2d 699 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1945)
State v. Terre Haute Brewing Co.
115 N.E. 772 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1917)
State v. Fairbanks
115 N.E. 769 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1917)
Utah National Bank of Salt Lake City v. Nelson
111 P. 907 (Utah Supreme Court, 1910)
State ex rel. Voyles v. French Lick Springs Hotel Co.
82 N.E. 801 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1907)
Acme Fertilizer Co. v. State
72 N.E. 1037 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1905)
Paragon Paper Co. v. State
49 N.E. 600 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1898)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
42 N.E. 963, 14 Ind. App. 369, 1896 Ind. App. LEXIS 255, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-sullivan-county-agricultural-society-indctapp-1896.