§ 691. Definition.-Whatever tends to endanger life, or health, to outrage decency, or otherwise injure public morals, comfort, or safety, is a misdemeanor at common law and indictable as a nuisance.1 A public nuisance must affect the community in general. A private nuisance which affects one or a few individuals is not indictable.2 But it is not necessary that all members of the community be affected. It is enough that there is a condition of things, which, to escape risk, the members of the community must avoid. A nuisance may be caused by the doing of something unlawful, or the failure to perform some legal duty.

Very many things which would be indictable generally as nuisances, have been made specific offenses by statute.

§ 692. Acts and conditions indictable.-Among acts and conditions which have been held indictable as a public nui

1 Whart. Crim. L. (11th ed.), § 1676; Kensy Outlines Crim. L. (Am. ed.) 309.

2 State v. Wolfe, 112 N. Car. 889, 17 S. E. 528; note to 107 Am. St. 199-252.

3 Hackney v. State, 8 Ind. 494; Commonwealth v. Rush. 11 Lans. L. Rev. (Pa.) 97; People v. Weeks, 158 N. Y. S. 39, 172 App. Div. 117; People v. Wabash Ry. Co., 197 Mich. 404, 163 N. W. 996.

10

11

sance are the following: Setting a spring gun so as to put in danger persons passing on a highway, habitually making loud noises in a public place, keeping a swine yard or pigsty in a city, contaminating water in a spring or well, selling provisions so spoiled as to be unfit for food, slaughter houses in cities, a tannery in a city,1o a petroleum factory in a city,1 a tallow chandlery in a city,12 storage of explosives in such a manner as to endanger the safety of the community,13 continuous production of smoke,14 or noxious vapors affecting the air in the neighborhood,15 burning soft coal in locomotives, when declared a nuisance by statute,16 a mill-dam causing the accumulation of decaying matter and noxious vapors, projecting buildings which endanger passersby,18 exposure of a person, corpse or animal infected with a conta

17

4 State v. Moore, 31 Conn. 479, 83 Am. Dec. 159.

5 Bankus v. State, 4 Ind. 114; Rex v. Smith, 1 Strange 704.

6 State v. Holcomb, 68 Iowa 107, 26 N. W. 33, 56 Am. Rep. 853; Commonwealth v. Alden, 143 Mass. 113, 9 N. E. 15.

7 State v. Taylor, 29 Ind. 517; State v. Buckman, 8 N. H. 203, 29 Am. Dec. 646.

8 State v. Smith, 3 Hawks. (N. Car.) 378, 14 Am. Dec. 594.

9 Commonwealth V. Upton, 6 Gray (Mass.) 473; Taylor v. People, 6 Park. Cr. (N. Y.) 347; State v. Woodbury, 67 Vt. 602, 32 Atl. 495.

10 State v. Cadwalader, 36 N. J. L. 283.

11 Commonwealth v. Kidder, 107 Mass. 188.

12 Bliss v. Hall, 4 Bing. N. Cas. 183.

13 Hazard Powder Co. v. Volger, 58 Fed. 152; State v. Excelsior

Powder Mfg. Co., 259 Mo. 254, 169 S. W. 267, L. R. A. 1915A, 615n; People v. Sands, 1 Johns. (N. Y.) 78, 3 Am. Dec. 296; State v. Paggett, 8 Wash. 579, 36 Pac. 487; Webley v. Wooley, L. R. 7 Q. B.

61.

14 Bates v. Holbrook, 171 N. Y. 460, 64 N. E. 181; Cooper v. Woolley, 36 L. J. M. C. 27, L. R. 2 Exch. 88, 15 L. T. 539, 15 W. R. 450. 15 Waters-Pierce Oil Co. V. Cook, 6 Tex. Civ. App. 573, 26 S. W. 96; Crump v. Lambert, L. R. 3 Eq. Cas. 409; Rex v. Pappineau, 1 Strange 686.

16 State v. Chicago &c. R. Co., 114 Minn. 122, 130 N. W. 545, Ann. Cas. 1912B, 1030.

17 State v. Holman, 104 N. Car. 861, 10 S. E. 758; Stacy v. State, 54 Tex. Cr. 610, 114 S. W. 807, 22 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1259; Douglass v. State, 4 Wis. 387.

18 Grove v. Ft. Wayne, 45 Ind 429, 15 Am. Rep. 262.

gious disease,19 keeping dogs which frighten travelers or horses, 20 a fertilizer factory.21 Stables are not a nuisance when kept orderly,22 but may be conducted with such offensiveness as to become nuisances.23 A gas plant, as a necessary utility of a city, properly conducted, is not a nuisance,24 neither are brick kilns, unless negligently conducted.25

§ 693. Locality determining a nuisance.-Most of the acts mentioned in the previous section are nuisances only because the places where they exist are populous. The offensive trades and buildings would not be such were they in a thinly populated place. However, it may be that a building or factory, when erected was in a thinly settled district, but the advance of population has caused the community to become populous, and that which was not a nuisance when the district was thinly settled becomes indictable.26

§ 694. When public benefit prevents a thing from being a nuisance.-Works of public improvement authorized by the legislature which necessarily cause incidental annoyance are not indictable as nuisances,27 nor acts are for the common

19 Rex v. Vantandillo, 4 Maule & S. 73; Rex v. Burnett, 4 Maule & S. 272.

20 Brill v. Flagler, 23 Wend. (N. Y.) 354; King v. Kline, 6 Pa. St. 318.

21 Acme Fertilizer Co. v. State, 34 Ind. App. 346, 72 N. E. 1037, 107 Am. St. 190.

22 Phillips v. Denver, 19 Colo. 179, 34 Pac. 902, 41 Am. St. 230; Shiras v. Olinger, 50 Iowa 571, 32 Am. Rep. 138.

23 Dargan v. Waddill, 31 N. Car. 244, 49 Am. Dec. 421.

24 Beatrice Gas Co. v. Thomas, 41 Nebr. 662, 59 N. W. 925, 43 Am. St. 711; People v. New York Gas Light Co., 64 Barb. (N. Y.) 55.

25 Huckenstine's Appeal, 70 Pa. St. 102, 10 Am. Rep. 669; Bamford v. Turnley, 3 Best. & S. 62; Wanstead Bd. Health v. Hill, 13 C. B. (N. S.) 479, 32 L. J. M. C. 135, 9 Jur. (N. S.) 972, 11 W. R. 368, 7 L. T. (N. S.) 744, Rev. Rep. 613.

26 Seacord v. People, 121 Ill. 623, 13 N. E. 194; Board of Health v. Lederer, 52 N. J. Eq. 675, 29 Atl. 444; Commonwealth v. Vansickle, 4 Clark (Pa.) 104, 7 Pa. L. J. 82.

27 Toledo Disposal Co. v. State, 89 Ohio St. 230, 106 N. E. 6, L. R. A. 1915B, 1207; Commonwealth v. Reed, 34 Pa. St. 275, 75 Am. Dec. 661.

health such as those of officers in burning infected bedding.28 But courts will not weigh public benefits against the annoyance caused, in order to determine which is greater, since the effect of so doing might be to impose a servitude on part of the community, for the benefit of other localities.29

Further, there must be a reasonable degree of annoyance before anything can be declared a nuisance; and for a slight annoyance to others, in the exercise of a constitutional right, for instance, the use of gas, or of steam or electric railways, or the annoyances from smoke, dust, and noise incident to city life, there can be no indictment.30

The length of time a nuisance has been established is no defense, for there can be no prescriptive right to maintain a nuisance.31

§ 695. Abatement.-Where a continuing nuisance is charged and proved, the court may order an abatement of the nuisance, independently of punishment by fine or imprisonment.32 A private person has the right at common law to abate a nuisance which specially affects him, if he can do so without a breach of the peace.33 Usually a judgment of

28 State v. Knoxville, 12 Lea. (Tenn.) 146, 47 Am. Rep. 331.

29 Seacord v. People, 121 Ill. 623, 13 N. E. 194; Board of Health v. Lederer, 52 N .J. Eq. 675, 29 Atl. 444; Commonwealth v. Vansickle, 4 Clark (Pa.) 104, 7 Pa. L. J. 82.

30 Powell v. Macon & I. S. R. Co., 92 Ga. 209, 17 S. E. 1027; Stace v. Board of Health, 54 N. J. L. 325, 23 Atl. 949; People v. Rosenberg, 138 N. Y. 410, 34 N. E. 285; Commonwealth v. Miller, 139 Pa. St. 77, 21 Atl. 138, 23 Am. St. 170; Whart. Crim. L. (11th ed.), §§ 1680, 1694.

31 Wright v. Moore, 38 Ala. 593, 82 Am. Dec. 731; Kissel v. Lewis, 156 Ind. 233, 59 N. E. 478; Stough

ton v. Baker, 4 Mass. 522, 3 Am. Dec. 236; State v. Vandalia, 119 Mo. App. 406, 94 S. W. 1009; note to 26 Am. Dec. 102; note to 24 Am. Dec. 162; note to 107 Am. St. 218; note to 53 L. R. A. 894; Weld v. Hornby, 7 East 195.

32 Campbell v. State, 16 Ala. 144; State v. Marshall, 100 Miss. 626, 56 So. 792, Ann. Cas. 1914A, 434; Meigs v. Lister, 25 N. J. Eq. 489; People v. Vanderbilt, 28 N. Y. 396, 25 How. Pr. 139, 84 Am. Dec. 351; Smith v. State, 22 Ohio St. 539.

33 Commonwealth v. Ruddle, 142 Pa. St. 144, 21 Atl. 814; Colchester v. Brooke, 7 Q. B. 339, 15 L. J. Q. B. 173, 10 Jur. 610; 3 Bl. Comm. 5, 220; Cooley on Torts (3d ed.),

abatement will direct the person causing the nuisance to discontinue or abate it, and if he refuses to do so, the order will be enforced by public authority.34 In abating a nuisance, there is no right to injure property any more than is necessary to stop the nuisance.35

§ 696. Nuisance caused by personal conduct.-At common law and under some statutes persons may be indicted for certain nuisances caused by different phases of personal conduct, such as being a common barrator,36 that is, one who habitually stirs up litigation among persons whether or not he is personally interested, a common brawler,37 that is, one who is habitually brawling and quarreling in public, a common drunkard, a common profane swearer, an habitual eavesdropper,40 one who surreptitiously listens and divulges what he hears, a common scold,11 one who repeatedly scolds so that she disturbs the community, a false news monger, one who spreads broadcast false and alarming information,42 a street walker, 43 one who parades the streets

38

57; Whart. Crim. L. (11th ed.), §§ 128, 129. See also, note to 124 Am. St. 595 et seq.

34 Schultz v. State, 32 Ohio St. 276; Commonwealth v. Erie & N. E. R. Co., 27 Pa. St. 339, 67 Am. Dec. 471; Barclay v. Commonwealth, 25 Pa. St. 503, 64 Am. Dec. 715.

35 Barclay v. Commonwealth, 25 Pa. St. 503, 64 Am. Dec. 715; Lancaster Tpk. Co. v. Rogers, 2 Pa. St. 114, 44 Am. Dec. 179; Roberts v. Rose, 4 Hurlst. & C. 103.

36 State v. Chitty, 1 Baily L. (S. Car.) 379; 4 Bl. Comm. 134; Reg. v. Hardwicke, 1 Sid. 282

37 Commonwealth v. Foley, 99 Mass. 497; Pollock v. State, 32 Tex. Cr. 29, 22 S. W. 19; Reg. v. Taylor, 2 Ld. Raym. 879.

39

38 State v. Welch, 88 Ind. 308; Commonwealth v. Boon, 2 Gray (Mass.) 74; State v. Pratt, 34 Vt. 323.

39 Newton v. State, 94 Ga. 593, 19 S. E. 895; Foreman v. State, 31 Tex. Cr. 477, 20 S. W. 1109.

40 Commonwealth v. Foley, 99 Mass. 499; Commonwealth v. McHale, 97 Pa. St. 397, 39 Am. Rep. 808; Rex v. Foxby, 6 Mod. 11.

41 United States v. Royall, Fed. Cas. No. 16201, 3 Cranch (U. S.) 618; 4 Bl. Comm. 168.

42 Koppersmith v. State, 51 Ala. 6; 4 Bl. Comm. 149; In re Harris' Trial, 7 How. St. Tr. 925.

43 Stokes v. State, 92 Ala. 73, 9 So. 400, 25 Am. St. 22; Ex parte McCarthy, 72 Cal. 384, 14 Pac. 96.