State v. Ellar
The State v. Jacob Ellar
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Taylor, Chief-Justice.
It was held, in the case of the State v. Waller, that if the offence with which the Defendant then stood charged, had been laid as a common nuisance, and the Jury had so found it, thejudg- *268 ffipnf would have been supported. Drunkenness and profane swearing are placed on the same footing by the act of 1741, c. SO, and where committed in single acts, may be punished summarily by a Justice of the Peace. But where the acts are repeated, and so public as to become an annoyance and inconvenience to the citizens at targe, no reason is perceived why they are not indictable as common nuisances. Several offences are stated in the books as so indictable, though not more troublesome to the public than the one before us. A common scold is indictable as a common nuisance; and with equal, if not stronger reason, I should think, a common, profane swearer, may be so considered.
Per Curiam. — Let the Judgment be reversed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 1 case
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.