Case Name: The State of Iowa v. Kreig
Court: Iowa Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Iowa
Decision Date: 1862-06-23
Citations: 13 Iowa 462
Docket Number: 
Parties: The State of Iowa v. Kreig.
Judges: 
Reporter: Iowa Reports
Volume: 13
Pages: 462–463

Head Matter:
The State of Iowa v. Kreig.
1 Indictment: nuisance. An indictment for causing and continuing a public nuisance-by establishing, keeping and using “a certain building or place" for the sale of intoxicating liquors is sufficiently definite in its description of the place.
Appeal from Des Moines District Court.
Monday, June 23.
Defendant was indicted for causing and continuing a public nuisance; for that he did, on the 1st of January, A. D. 1860, and afterwards, in the County of Des Moines, establish, continue and use “ a certain building and place, " in which he kept and sold intoxicating liquors, to wit: whiskey, &c., to the common nuisance, &c. A demurrer was interposed, upon the ground (as far as now insisted upon), that the indictment did not sufficiently describe or designate the place or building in or by which the crime was committed. Demurrer overruled, defendant was convicted, fined twenty dollars, and appeals.
Hall, Harrington & Hall for the appellant.
. The description in the indictment is not sufficient. Rev. of 1860, §§ 4060, 1564; 1 Chit. Or. L., 196 (marg.); 30 Eng. C. L. R., 238; 3 Ad. & EL, 815; The State of Iowa v. ■Grogan, 8 Iowa, 523; The State of Iowa v. Maurer, 7 Id., 406; Capps v. The State of Iowa, 4 Id., 502; Norris House v. The State, 3 G. Greene, 519 ; Our House No. 2 v. The State, 4 Id., 172 ; 37 N. H., 215.
. C. C. Nourse, Attorney General, for the State,
relied upon The State of Iowa v. Grogan, 8 Iowa, 523 ; and The State -of Iowa v. Maurer, 7 Id., 408.

Opinion:
Wright, J.
The demurrer was properly overruled. The indictment was against the individual, and not the house or building. State v. Crogan, 8 Iowa, 523. We find no precedent, either in the text books or cases, requiring a more 'definite description. 3 Chitty's Cr. Law, 672, et seq. The King v. Taylor, 3 B. & C., 502; 2 Hill, 558. Our statute does not require it.