The American issue. [volume] (Westerville, Ohio) 1912-19??, 1912-12-06
December 6, 1912.


person committing illegal act and to prohibit the
of property for illegal purposes-and these
separate and distinct Punishment for the act is fine
imprisonment or both, but it is not the sale
keeping for sale of liquor that constitutes the nuisance
but it is the keeping of place which the general
seby has determined to be dangerous to the health,
morals, safety and welfare of the public. The juris
diction of courts of equity to enlon nuisances is
ancient and extends at least back to the reign of
Queen Elizabeth and in cases of public nuisances
indictment not only lies to abate them and punish the
offenders, but information also lies in equity to
redress the grievance by way of injunction, the
ground that courts Of equity have ability to give
complete and perfect remedy, operating through
future time, than is attainable by law. Citing
thortes 1t very early recognized by this court
that court of equity may grant preventive relief
where threatened act would be public nuisance,
people City of ST. Louis, C1ilm. 35I), and that
has always been the law of this state 1t is we'll
recognized branch of equity jurisprudence to restrain
by Injunction public nulsances. Citing authortes.]
1t is of the most useful functions of court of
equity that it may give complete and adequate relief
against acts which will constitute nuisances, and laws
such as the one in question do not deny the equal
protection of the laws. Crowley " Christensen, 81
u. 5. SO.
The Criminal Trial and Acquitta Does Not Deprive
Court of Equity of Jurisdiction.
The act provides method of abatement on the
conviction of the keeper of the place where liquors
sold in violation of law, and it is contended that a
court of equity will not intervene because of this pro-
vision. BY this act all places where lntox1-
eating liquors sold in violation of it's provisions
placed in precisely the category any other
common and public nuisance, and there is no reason
why the same rule should not apply to remedies The
law extends special favor to nuisance not al
lowed to ALL AS to nuisances generally, not only is
the existence of the method provided by the statute
for their abatement not obstacle to relief in
of equity, but this court in Mnke Hopeman, 81 ILL.,
$50, held that the trial and acquttal of indicted
for nuisance did not deprive of equity of its
equitable jurisdiction, and it said that the fact
that the statute gave remedy by indictment did not
deprive the court Of jurisdiction to enon the nuisance
1t considered that want of jurisdiction to enjoin
nuisance which might breed pestilence be dan
gerous to the welfare of the public would be reproach
to the law and it said that the trial of the in
dicment the defendant would be entitled the bene
fit of reasonable doubt and although the evidence
might clearly preponderate against him. yet the jury
might acquit him. Whatever the degree of proof that
would be required in court of equity, that court
would determine and apply the law, while in GRIM
ina prosecution the jury would be judges of the law
as we'll as of the facts, and court upon any degree
of proof might be poweress to enforce the law This
has been repeatedly demonstrated with respect to
prosecutions relating to subjects on which there