STATE OF ARKANSAS v. JAMES J. CORBETT ET AL.

KANSAS: Douglass v. City of Leavenworth, 6 Kan. App., 96. MARYLAND: Hamilton v. Whitridge, 11 Md., 128; Gore v. Brubaker, 55 Md., 87; Woodyear v. Schaefer, 57 Md., 1. MASSACHUSETTS: District Atty., Etc., v. Lynn and Boston R. R. Co., 16 Gray, 242 (purpresture); Attorney General v. Woods, 108 Mass., 436 (purpresture); Attorney General v. Jamaica Pond Aqueduct Co., 133 Mass., 361 (purpresture and nuisance); Attorney General v. Farr, 148 Mass., 309 (purpresture). MICHIGAN: Robinson v. Baugh, 31 Mich., 290; Grand Rapids v. Weiden, 97 Mich., 82; s. c., 56 N. W., 233; McMorran v. Fitzgerald, 606 Mich., 649.

MINNESOTA: County of Stearns v. St. Cloud, M. & A. R. R. Co., 36 Minn., 425; s. c., 32 N. W., 91; Village of Pine City v. Munch, 42 Minn., 342; 44 N. W., 197; s. c., 44 N. W., 797; 6 L. R. A., 763; Township of Hutchinson v. Filk, 441 Minn., 536. MISSOURI: Glasgow v. City of St. Louis, 87 Mo., 678, 682 (purpresture); Dubach v. Hannibal and St. Joseph R. R. Co., 89 Mo., 483 (purpresture); Glaessner v. Anheuser-Busch Brewing Assn. et al., 100 Mo., 508 (purpresture); s. c., 13 S. W., 707; Schopp v. The City of St. Louis, 117 Mo., 131 (purpresture and nuisance); s. c., 22 S. W., 898; Lockwood v. The Wabash Ry. Co., 122 Mo., 86 (purpresture); 3. c., 26 S. W., 698; The Chas. H. Heer Dry Goods Co. v. Citizens Ry. Co., 41 Mo. App., 63 (purpresture).

NEBRASKA: Barton v. Union Cattle Co., 28 Neb., 350 (nuisance to health); s. c., 4 N. W., 454.

NEW JERSEY: Higbee & Riggs v. Camden and Amboy R. R. Co., 19 N. J. Eq. (4 C. E. Gr.), 276; Attorney General v. The Morris and Essex R. R. Co., Id., 386; Attorney General v. Steward & Taylor, 20 N. J. Eq. (5 C. E. Gr.), 415 (nuisance to health); Lippincott v. Lasker, 44 N. J. Eq., 120 (nuisance to health and purpresture); Cronin v. Bloemcke, 58 N. J. Eq., 343 (nuisance to dwelling, disorderly crowds); 43 Atl., 605; Attorney General v. Paterson, 58 N. J. Eq., 1.

NEW YORK: Corning v. Lowerre, 5 John. Ch., 439 (purpresture); Trustees of Watertown v. Cowen, 4 Pa., 513 (purpresture); s. c., 27 Am. Dec., 80; Attorney General v. Cohoes Co., 6 Pa., 133 (purpresture); s. c., 29 Am. Dec., 755; Milhau v. Sharp, 28 Barb., 228; affd. 27 N. Y., 611; Knox v. Mayor, Etc., of New York, 55 Barb., 404; Mayor, Etc., of New York v. Baumberger, 7 Rob., 219; People v. Third Avenue R. R. Co., 45 Barb., 63 (purpresture); s. c., 30 How. Pr., 121; City of Rochester v. Erickson, 46 Barb., 92 (purpresture); Penniman v. N. Y. Bal

STATE OF ARKANSAS v. JAMES J. CORBETT ET AL.

ance Co., Etc., 14 How. Pr., 40; Gillespie v. Forrest 18 Hun., 110; People v. Vanderbilt, 26 N. Y., 287 (purpresture); see same case on second appeal, 28 N. Y., 396; see same case in Supreme Court, 25 How. Pr., 140; 38 Barb., 287; s. c., 84 Am. Dec., 351; People v. N. Y. and L. I. R. R. Co., 68 N. Y., 71 (purpresture); Corning v. Troy Iron and Nail Factory, 40 N. Y., 191 (purpresture); Cranford v. Tyrrell, 128 N. Y., 341; s. c.. 28 N. E., 514; Gould v. City of Rochester, 105 N. Y., 46; reversing 39 Hun., 29; Flynn v. Taylor, 127 N. Y., 596 (purpresture); 26 N. Y. St., 85; 40 N. Y. St., 187; Wateman v. Wilbur, 147 N. Y., 657; 71 N. Y. St., 266.

NORTH CAROLINA: Bell et al. v. Blount, 11 N. Car. (4 Hawks), 384 (nuisance to health); Citizens of Raleigh v. Hunter, 16 N. Car. (1 Dev. Eq.), 12 (nuisance to health); Clark v. Lawrence, 6 Jones' Eq., 83; Evans v. The Railroad, 96 N. Car., 46. OHIO: Putnam v. Valentine, 5 Ohio, 117 (purpresture).

OREGON: Parrish v. Stephens, 1 Ore., 75; Blagen v. Smith, 34 Ore., 394; 56 Pac., 292; 44 L. R. A., 522.

PENNSYLVANIA: Commissioners of Moyamensing v. Long, 1 Pars., 13 (purpresture); Philadelphia v. Crump, 1 Brewst., 320 (purpresture); Dennis v. Eckhardt, 3 Grant, 391; Borough of Frankford v. Lenning, 2 Phil., 403 (purpresture); s. c., 1 Am. Law Reg., 357; Commonwealth v. P. & C. R. R. Co., 24 Pa. St., 159 (purpresture); City of Philadelphia v. Ry. Co., 8 Phila., 648 (purpresture); Attorney General v. L. and S. S. Pass. R. R. Co., 10 Phila., 352 (purpresture); Commonwealth v. Reimer, 15 Phila., 72 (purpresture); affd. Reimer's Appeal, 100 Pa. St., 182; Evans' appeal, 58 Pa. St., 249 (purpresture); Weir's Appeal, 74 Pa. St., 230; Pa. Lead Co.'s Appeal, 96 Pa. St., 116; Venago Co. Comm'rs v. Oil City St. Ry. Co., 3 Pa. Dist. Rep., 546 (purpresture); Rarick v. Smith, 5 Id., 530; Goodwin v. Hamilton, 6 Id., 705 (purpresture); Commr. ex rel. v. Stevens et al., 178 Pa. St., 543; City of Harrisburg's appeal (Pa.), 10 Atl., 787 (nuisance and purpresture in highway). TENNESSEE: Weakley v. Page, 102 Tenn., 179; 53 S. W., 551; 46 L. R. A., 552.

TEXAS:

Burdett v. Swenson, 17 Tex., 489 (nuisance to health); State v. Goodnight, 71 Tex., 682 (purpresture); s. c., 11 S. W., 119; City of Llano v. Llano County, 23 S. W., 1008 (purpresture and nuisance).

VIRGINIA: Miller v. Truehart, 4 Leigh, 529 (nuisance to health).

WASHINGTON: Moore v. City of Walla Walla, 2 W. Ter., 184 (purpresture).

STATE OF ARKANSAS v. JAMES J. CORBETT ET AL.

WEST VIRGINIA: Keystone Bridge Co. v. Summers, 13 W. Va., 476 (purpresture).

WISCONSIN: Walker v. Shepardson, 2 Wis., 385 (purpresture); Barnes v. The City of Racine et al., Wis., 454; Williams et al. v. Smith et al., 22 Wis., 594; Potter et al. v. The Village of Menasha, 30 Wis., 492 (purpresture); Wisconsin Riv. Imp. Co. v. Lyons, 30 Wis., 61 (purpresture); Pettibone et al. v. Hamilton et al., 40 Wis., 402 (purpresture).

UNITED STATES: State of Pennsylvania v. The Wheeling, Etc., Bridge Co., 13 How., 518 (purpresture); Miss. & Mo. R. R. Co. v. Ward, 2 Black, 485 (purpresture); In re Debs, 158 U. S., a64 (recognizing arguendo); s. c., 15 Sup. Ct. Rep., 900; 2 A. & E., Dec. Eq., 364; Silliman v. The Hudson River Bridge Co., Blatchf., 74 (purpresture); s. c., Federal cases, 1285; United States v. Ruggles, 5 Blatchf., 35 (purpresture); s. c., Federal cases, 16; 204; The Mining Debris case, 8 Sawy., 628; s. c., 16 Fed., 25; U. S. v. Brighton Ranche Co., 26 Fed., 218 (purpresture and nuisance); U. S. v. Clev. & Col. Cattle Co., 33 Fed., 323; Hart v. Buckner, 54 Fed., 925; s. c., 2 U. S. App., 488; Indianapolis Water Co. v. American Strawboard Co., 53 Fed., 970; reaffirming same case, 57 Fed., 1000.

See also, as recognizing but not applying, the jurisdiction: Delaware and Hudson C. Co. v. Lawrence, 2 Hun., 163; Davis v. Mayor, Etc., of New York, 14 N. Y., 506, reversing 3 Duer, 119; Luhrs v. Sturtevant, 10 Ore., 170; Esson v. Wattier, 25 Ore., 7; Bunnell's Appeal, 69 Pa. St., 59; Larimer Ry. Co. v. Ry. Co., 137 Pa. St., 535; Lassater v. Garrett, 4 Baxter, 368; Rio Grande Ry. Co. v. Brownsville, 45 Tex., 88 (purpresture); Dunn v. City of Austin, 77 Tex., 139; s. c., 11 S. W., 1125; Wingfield v. Crenshaw, H. & M., 474; Beveridge v. Lacey, 3 Kand., 63; Sargeant v. George, 56 Vt., 627; Mayor, Etc., of Georgetown v. The Alexandria Canal Co., 12 Pet., 91.

A-3. Criminality No Bar to Injunction

The jurisdiction of chancery to enjoin an indictable nuisance springs from the fact that the remedy by indictment is insufficient to protect some public or private right against an irremediable injury. And while equity does not deal with crimes, as such, or enforce the criminal laws of the State, where the acts done or threatened will work an irreparable damage to private or public rights, the fact of their criminality is no bar to equitable relief by injunction. Rex v. Betterton, Skinner, 625; s. c., Holt, 538; 5 Mod., 142; People v. Truckee Lumber Co., 116 Cal., 397; People v. City of St. Louis, 5 Gilm., 351 (purpresture and nuisance); Kaufman v. Stein, 138 Ind.,

STATE OF ARKANSAS v. JAMES J. CORBETT ET AL.

49; Columbian Ath. Club v. State ex rel. McMahan, 143 Ind., 98; s. c., 28 L. R. A., 727; 40 N. E., 914; 2 A. & E. Dec. Eq., 340; People's Gas Co. v. Tyner, 131 Ind., 227; 16 L. R. A.. 443; State v. Crawford, 218 Kan., 726 (dictum); Hill v. Pierson, 45 Neb., 503, 507; s. c., 63 N. W., 835; Attorney General v. Paterson, 58 N. J. L., 1; Pa. Lead Co.'s Appeal, 96 Pa. St., 116; Walker v. Shepardson, 2 Wis., 384; Cranford v. Tyrrell, 128 N. Y., 341; s. c., 28 N. E., 514. But the converse of this proposition is not to be considered true. With crime, as crime, equity has no dealing. It will not undertake to restrain the commission of an act constituting a crime, merely because it is criminal in character. State v. Patterson, 1 Tex. Civ. App., 465; s. c., 37 S. W., 478.

A-4. Statutory Power of Abatement Must Be Inadequate—

Nor is jurisdiction of equity to enjoin public nuisances ousted by statutes providing summary modes for their abatement, by State or municipal authorities, where the rights of a private party or of the public are threatened with such injury as would be irreparable by the statutory methods. Wheeler v. Bedford, 54 Conn., 244; s. c., 7 Atl., 22. And where statutory penalties are affixed to an act which constitutes a public nuisance, if they are inadequate, chancery will still intervene. State v. Ohio Oil Co., 150 Ind., 21. In Michigan, by statute (Comp. L., 1871, § 6377), courts of equity are expressly given jurisdiction to enjoin nuisances where the remedy at law is not "plain, adequate and complete." But this statute is held to be only declaratory of a jurisdiction already possessed by chancery. Robinson v. Baugh, 31 Mich., 290.

But where municipal authorities have ample powers to give adequate redress or protection, injunction will be denied. People v. Equity Gas Light Co., 11 N. Y., 232 (nuisance in street); s. c., 36 N. E., 194; 67 N. Y. St., 85; affg. 3 Misc., 333; and where a statutory remedy is provided, a court of equity will not enjoin a public nuisance in the absence of an allega tion, and showing that it is insufficient to prevent a probable irreparable damage. Norwood v. Dickey, 18 Ga., 528; Powell v. Foster, 59 Ga., 790; Broomhead v. Grant, 83 Ga., 451; s. C., 10 S. E., 116; State ex rel. County Attorney v. Crawford, 28 Kan., 726, 737; People v. Horton, 5 Hun, 516, 517; Rice v. Jefferson, 50 Mo. App., 464; 1 High. Inj., 745; cf. Cheek v. City of Aurora, 92 Ind., 107, 112, 113.

A-5. Indictment Must Be Inadequate to Protect

And, just as in cases where there is adequate statutory remedy, the jurisdiction of equity does not attach when the

STATE OF ARKANSAS v. JAMES J. CORBETT ET AL.

remedy by indictment is ample and adequate to redreзs all injury occasioned by the nuisance. Attorney General v. N. J. R. R. and Tr. Co., 3 N. J. Eq. (2 Gr. Ch.), 136; Jersey City v. City of Hudson, 13 N. J. Eq. (2 Beas.), 420; Attorney General v. Heishon, 18 N. J. Eq. (3 C. E. Gr.), 410; Morris and Essex R. R. Co. v. Prudden, 20 N. J. Eq. (5 C. E. Gr.), 530; Morris Canal and Banking Co. v. Fagin, 22 N. J. Eq. (7 C. E. Gr.), 430; Attorney General v. Brown, 24 N. J. Eq. (9 C. E. Gr.), 89; Attorney General v. Del. and Bound Brook R. R. Co., 27 N. J. Eq. (12 C. E. Gr.), 1, 26; Osborne v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 147 U. S., 248; Neaf v. Palmer (Ky., 1898), 45 S. W., 506; Anderson v. Doty, 33 Hun., 160.

A-6. Injunction is Not Interference with Right of Trial by Jury— An injunction issued upon a proper showing for the prevention of a public nuisance is a purely civil remedy, and against its violation is provided the discretionary power of infliction of a penalty by the court. The penalty is for the contempt of court in disobeying its lawful mandate and is in no sense a punishment for any crime which might inhere in the prohibited acts. Various defenses might be interposed on the criminal trial, extending perhaps to the complete justification of the deed; but these circumstances would have no relevancy in defenseз under a rule to show cause against punishment for contempt. In that case the only question before the court would be the fact of the commission of the acts prohibited. The punishment of the crime is another consideration, to be raised in another tribunal, where and when the defendant will have his day in court and be accorded his full right by jury trial. The King v. Betterton, Skinner, 625, 628-630; Carleton v. Rugg, 149 Mass., 550; State v. Saunders, 66 N. H., 39, 81, 83; 29 Atl., 588; Littleton v. Fritz, 65 Ia., 488; State v. Crawford, 28 Kan., 726. See contra State v. Uhrig. 14 Mo. App., 413, 416. The jurisdiction to punish for contempt is necessary for the maintenance of any semblance of dignity or authority in a court. It is entirely independent of the relation the acts of contempt bear to the rest of the jurisprudence or laws. In the language of Brewer, J., “a court enforcing obedience to its "orders by proceedings for contempt, is not executing the "criminal laws of the land, but only securing to suitors the "rights which it has adjudged them entitled to." In re Debs, 158 U. S., 564; 15 Sup. Ct. Rep., 900; 2 Am. & Eng. Dec. in Eq., 364, 396. The right of him who is accused of crime to be tried by a jury of his peers applies when the law attempts to inflict its prescribed penalties by regular prosecution; but it has no application to the sanctions applied by the courts of