Indiana daily times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1914-1922, 1921-07-12

Continued From Page one)
act constitutes a public nuisance OF in
terferes with property rights, there con.
tinued commission will not be enJoined.
1t is A wei settled rule, recognized
and declared by decisions IN all the
courts, that courts Of equity have no juI-
isdiction to entoin the commission Of
crimes as such. 1t is, however. equally
well settled that where the acts consti-
tuting a criminal offense also constitute
a public nuisance. or an interference with
property rights or the civil rights Of
citizens, they may be enjoined. The
preventing and restraining Of the acts
complained Of is provided for by the
statute under which this proceeding is
brought IN general terms notwithstand-
ing they are also made crimes by the
same statute.
MUNITIONS DEALS
WITH THREATS.
If the statute did not so provide
think that the acts complained Of are OF
such a character that the court under its
general equity powers would have ample
authority to prevent the further commits
sion by Injunction. IN determining whether
the intunctive ref:ee proved should be
granted the question Of whether crime
had been committed is only indirectly IN
volved and Is not sought to be punished.
Injunction deals with their threatened
commission in the future and the deter
mination Of whether they had been Grim
inally committed in the past IS left to the
courts OF law.
The alleged acts in this case are. In the
opinion Of the court, Of such a character
as affecting the right Of the public as to
come fully within the jurisdiction and
domain Of a court OF equity.
THE question still remains whether 9
preliminary hearing should be held at
this time 10 determine whether a TEN
pOrary injunction should be granted 10
continue in effect until the final hearing.
NO THREAT
Is ALLEGED.
"As I read the petition it is not al
legged that any act is being threatened
or committed which will In any way
change the status of the parties or the
proceedings on the subject matter pend
ing final hearing, or which would render
the final hearing futile; the restraint
sought to lie enforced under the tenn
fpOrary writ is to be as broad under its
scope as under the final injunction
sought
Both the temporary injunction asked
for and the perpetual injunction sought
on final hearing are mandatory in char
acter. II it were shown in the petition
that any act is threatened which would
or might alter the status or render the
final hearings futile, a different question
would be presented.
ION preliminary hearing the facts
bearing on the matters In issue are pre-
scented mainly by affidavits and counter
affidavits These are couched In the Ian
guage Of the parties and usually abound
in conclusions There is no opportunity
for cross examination and where sharp
disputes occur as to facts 1t is quite diff
ficult for the court TO satisfactorily ar
rive at the truth
1T is a general rule that where the al
legations to the verified petition are fully
met and controverted, a temporary In
junction will not issue.
IF on a preliminary hearing a tenn
porary injunction is granted, on appeal
may be taken from the interlocutory or
der and by the exercise OF this right by
the defendants delay would be occasioned.
In view of the allegations Of the veri-
fed petition Of the attorney general, It
is unfortunate that the final hearing can
not be had at an earlier date, but In
view OF the fact that no Threatened acts
which can in any way eject the final
hearing are alleged; that a temporary in
junction must involve all or at least an
important part OF the relief sought on
! final hearing and that a preliminary
hearing does not ordinarily enable the
court to arrive satisfactorily at the truth
Of the questions involved; that no bond
is required In this proceeding to protect
the defendants if such proceeding should
be wrongful, I am inclined TO postpone
the granting Of injunctiye relief until
the final hearing. when a full investiga-
tion may be made under the usual rules
OF court procedure with much more sat
isfactOry results.
THE hearing should be set for an early
day and prompt disposition of the case
should be made" the court held.
Attorney General L. S. Lesh was in
court but made no statement regarding
the ruling Of the court.