State v. . EllarState v. . Ellar
- Reporters:
- Before:
- Taylor
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.