Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1915-11-07
INJUNCT1oNs DISSOLVED
BY JUDGE AMIDON

Continued from page one) u.
a nuisance, the court shall abate it
by closing it and by enjoining the
keeper of it from continuing to main
tain it. The supreme court Of the
state, in State VS.. Dellaire, 4 N d.,
3l2, interpreted this statute as fol
lows: -.
"We notice that selling intoxicat-
ing liquors, contrary to the provisions
of this act, does not constitute the Of
Tense; nor does keeping intoxicating
liquors for sale contrary to the pre-
| visions of this act constitute the Oh
Tense. Neither is the offense COM
mitted by permitting persons to re-
sort to the place for the purpose OF
drinking intoxicating liquors as a bev-
erage. They are evidences Of the Of
Tense. 1t is keeping the place where
these things, or some Of 'tlem, are
done, that constitutes the offense."
In State vs.. Poull, IA N. D., 557, the
court says:
"The word, place. as used in this
statute means the particular room,
tenement or apartment wherein the
unlawful business is done, or the Ii.
quor is kept for sale, or Sold"
In that case a conviction was re.
versed because the information charg.
ed that the business was carried on
in two distinct buildings on the same
lot.
81 Must Specify Building. .
The decisions of the highest court
of the state leave no room for doubt
that a nuisance such as will justify
the issuance of an injunction, is con-
fined to a specific building in which
liquors are sold, or kept for sale, or
to which persons are permitted to re-
sort fer the purpose of drinking such
liquors. The right to resort to equity
does not arise out Of the wrongful
act Of selling intoxicating liquors In
violation Of law, but from keeping
the place. The bill fails to specify
any such building. The. smallest geo.
graphical unit referred to in the bill
is a, village. What the bill really
asks is not the abatement of a nui.
sance, but a general injunction re-
straining the defendant from deliver
ing Intoxicating liquor to persons who
intend to dispose of it in violation. of
law. In other words, the court is
asked to restrain the defendant from
a specific crime defined
by the statute oflNorth Dakota, name
ly, the delivery Of intoxicating liquors
by a common carrier to a person.
knowing that tine person intends to
use it in violation of the law Of the
state, Second. to restrain the carrier
from aiding and abetting evilly dis
posed persons who intend to violate
the prohibitory laws of the state. In
either case the Injunction is simpl:
to he used to forbid the doing of
criminal acts. There is nothing in
the bill which confines the relief to
the abatement of a nuisance such as
the state law, as interpreted by the
court of the state defines.
Such a use of the writ Of injunction
is wholly unauthorized by the state
law, and the court has no power on
the subject except such as is granted
by that law. It is too plain for argu-
that suits in equity cannot be !
for criminal prosecutions
as a means of preventing purely per-
sona1 crimes. The motion to dismiss |
therefore, be sustained.
Can Amend Bill.
| am of the opinion, however, that
The hill can be so amended as to con-
fine the relief sought to the abate-
nent of specific n%uisances, and that
IN injunction would lie against the
for delivering Intoxicating IL
luors to a person who is engaged in
such a place, with knowl.
edge, or reasonable cause to believe
that he intended so to use the liquors.
rhe carrier cannot shut it's eyes to
he uses to which intoxicating liquors
ire to be put. It has some duty be-
sides collecting the freight. If it de.
ivers intoxicating liquors to. the main.
amer for that purpose, ] think the
becomes a participator in the
of the nuisance so as to
)e subject to al injunction. If the at
yorney general desires to amend his
ill SO as to meet these requirements,