The Somerset reporter., 1902-04-17
Injunction Process Sustained.

One OF the mos, important rescfipts
tnat nave been handed down BY the law
court WAS received on Thursday BY
Clerk OF Courts Charles Sweet. l. r.
the rescript In the cases begun in Bath
by the petitioning Of 20 OF the voters Of
that city to the supreme court for an
Injunction restraining two men. Zetulof
u. Aud and George Schoppie from sell
ing liquor. On the hearing the iniune-
ton WAS granted and the two partie.
took an appeal The law court over
ruled the exceptions and affirmed the
judgment below. The rescrpt follows j:
Austin l. Davis, ct ais, in equity. vs..
Zsbulon o. Aud ct ais Austin |. Davis
Ell ais, IN equity, vs.. George Schoppie ct
al. Rescript by Emery, j. l. 1t Is
the duty of the State to guard the peace,
safety. health and morals Of its people
and for this purpose it may make use Of
all the powers and processes OF govern.
ment, executive, legislative and judicial,
except where forbidden by some proyis-
ion OF the State or United States Consti-
tuition.
2. In this State 1t has long been set.
tied by common consent expressed in
both legislative and judicial action that
''all buildings, shops or places where
Intoxicating liquors are sold for tipping
! purposes, and all places Of resort where
intoxicating liquors are kept, sold,
given away or dispensed In any manner
not provided by law, are common NUS
ances, that is, are hurtful to the
peace, safety, health or morals Of the
people. Il. S., Chap. II, Sec. l.
). That the State by statute or CON-
mon law can proceed, and has hitherto
proceeded, by criminal prosecution to
punish for the maintenance of a com.
mon nuisance and also to abate thu
nuisance, does not prevent the legisla
ture authorizing it to proceed In equity
to restrain, enjoin or abate such nuts
ance by the use of the equity writ Of
Injunction.
4. The statute Of 1891, Chap. 9S.-
comforting upon the supreme judcia
court and any justice thereof jursdic
ton IN equity, upon the petition of no
less than 20 legal voters of town
where liquor nuisance under r. S.
Chap. II, is alleged to exist, to restrain
euioin or abate such nuisance and TO is
sue an injunction for such purpose
within the Legislative power and is no
prohibited by any provision in eithe
constitution.
8. There Is no provision in eithe
constitution requiring an equity suit Il
behalf of the State or the people, to b
begun and carried on by the officia
public prosecutor. Hence, the legisls
ture may authorize such suit in tn
cause of common nuisance to be main
tanned by 20 legal voters in the tow
where the nuisance is alleged to exist.
6. The statute Of 1891, Chap. 90. au
thorizes proceedings in equity wthou
first obtaining judgment at law.
I. That the disobedience by the dc
PENDANT of the Injunction in such suit
ipso facto and necessarily criminal OF
tense snbjecting him to punishment TO
the crime, does not exempt himself from
other punishment by the court for disc
bedience of its Injunction, as for con
tempt.
S. The operation of the statute is no
to punish for past criminal acts, nor Il
enioin from the commission or crimina
acts In the future, but is to prevent tn,
further continuance OF present, exist
ing, continuous nuisance or hurt.
8. The procedure under the statute Ii
according to the ordinary civil proceed
ure In equity and the petition can bt
sustained upon mere preponderenct
of evidence in favor, since none of thu
results of a conviction for crime follow
10. Tie respondents In these caseI
did not claim nor ask for jury trial blu
submitted, without much request, to
hearing by single Justice, as usua
In equity pro eedings. Hence, thel
have not been denied a jury trial, ever
II they were not entitled to one under thu
constitution and laws.
II. The findings of facts by the jus
tice In the first instance are not shown
upon the appeal to be clearly erroneous
Hence, they must be affirmed.
Exceptions overruled.
Decree below affirmed with costs.