The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1903-05-28
SUNDAY BASEBALL CASE
ORAL ARGUMENT on DEFENDANTS,
DEMURRER HEARD.
Attorney Coffin Maintains that Sunday
Ball Playing Is Private as Well as
Public Nuisance.

Oral argument on the demurrer Of the
defendants i'm the case of Elmer E. Jones
against the Indianapolis Athletic Associa-
ton, owners of the Indianapolis Baseball
Club. heard by Judge Carter, in
Room 3, Marion Superior Court, yesterday
afternoon. The case is better known as the
Sunday baseball injunction case, Jones
being the plaintiff who secured an in
junction preventing the Indianapolis
club from playing a game at Washington
Park on Sunday. April 26, or any Sunday
while the injunction is in force.
Attorney Oran Muir appeared for the
ball club yesterday and Attorney Charles
F. Coffin represented the interests of the
plaintiff Attorney Ferdinand Winter, who
was to have made the argument for the
defendants, was out of the city. Attorney
Muir presented the same brief with the
court several days ago, and after reading
1t Attorney Coffin presented his brief and
argument Attorney Muir then asked per-
mission to file an additional brief to-day in
answer TO the one filed by Attorney Coffin.
The court granted the permission and it
is possible the demurrer will be decided
to-day.
Attorney Muir pointed out that Jones
resides 200 feet from the park. and his
claim that Sunday games would be, a
would not be injured any more than others
residing in the vicinity.
In the argument made by Attorney Coffin
1t was claimed that Jones has a right to
action whether Sunday ball games are
public or private nuisance. He said there
is no question in the present proceedings
about playing baseball on Sunday; the
moral element and the observance of Sum
day are also questions that are not to be
considered, but 1t is a question, he said,
whether the ball club or the law is
PLAINTIFFS BRIEF.
The plaintiffs brief in part says: ''The
defendants demur to the petition of the
plaintiff and raise by their brief the single
question Of whether the nuisance which
they admit they are committing is not such
public nuisance as that the plaintiff, be-
ing only humble citizen, has no remedy
that he can enforce in his own name.'
Attorney Coffin cited several authorities
to strengthen his argument. He said it is
we'll settled that equity will not refuse re-
lief by injunction merely because the acts
complained of constitute crime. He cited
Crawford VS.. Tyrrel, Is N. E., 514, and CO.
lumbia, etc., VS.. State, 143 Ind, 9S. He said
the law of Indiana is also we'll settled that
nuisance may be public nuisance and at
the same time private nuisance and the
subject of an action by any private citizen
affected thereby. Attorney Coffin paid spe-
Lewis, 156 Ind, 23S (24o.) The brief says at
this point:
1.-The court is referred to the last case
supra for a discussion of almost precisely
such a case as that under discussion, and
which is decisive of the question here in
volved.' The opinion in the Kissel case
says: 1.-THE circumstance that many other
property owners residing in the vicinity of
the defendants premises also sustained
special damages from the same cause
would not make the nuisance any less a
private nuisance. No proposition can be more
evident than that a public nuisance may
also be a private nuisance. II is a public
nuisance if it annoys such part of the pub
lie as necessarily comes in contact with it.
At the same time 1T is a private nuisance to
any person who sustains in his person or
his property any special injury different
from that of the public"
The brief says the plaintiff might rest the
present complaint on the decision of the
kissel case alone, but calls the courts at
tention to Sections 29O, POI and 292 of
Burnss Revised Statutes, 1901, as settling
conclusively, without regard to any COM
mon law distinction between public and
private nu;sances.