Weis v. Superior Court (1916) · DecisionDepot

Weis v. Superior Court

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Court of Appeal Jun 14, 1916 No. Civ. No. 2094.Published

Before: Shaw

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A court of equity has jurisdiction to enjoin a public nuisance even if the acts constituting the nuisance are also punishable as crimes. The court held that an indecent public exhibition that corrupts public morals constitutes a public nuisance subject to abatement by injunction.

Issues

Does a court of equity have jurisdiction to enjoin acts that constitute both a public nuisance and a crime?
Does the district attorney have the authority to bring a civil action to abate a public nuisance?

Disposition. dismissed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Where, however, the threatened acts, if committed, in addition to being an indictable offense, will constitute a public nuisance, courts of equity are vested with jurisdiction to interpose their injunctive process to prevent injury”

“An act displayed before a public audience which is debasing in its character, debauching in its influence on public morals, and brutalizing in its effect on the spectators is a public nuisance, which a court of equity has jurisdiction to enjoin”

Synopsis

APPLICATION for a Writ of Prohibition originally made to the District Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

SHAW, J.

Prohibition. Respondents have interposed a general demurrer to a petition, in compliance with which this court issued an alternative writ of prohibition directed to the superior court of San Diego County, commanding it to refrain

[731]

from further proceedings in a certain matter there pending, entitled “The People of the State of California, Plaintiff,

Joseph Weis, Jane Doe and Mary Roe, Defendants.”

As shown by the petition, the district attorney of San Diego County, on April 27, 1916, pursuant to the provisions of section 731 of the Code of Civil Procedure, commenced an action in the superior court of San Diego County entitled as above, the purpose of which was to secure an injunction against the doing of certain acts by defendants alleged to constitute a public nuisance, and thus abate the same.

In substance, the complaint filed in that action and made a part of the petition for the writ alleges that under a concession granted to defendant Joseph Weis by the Panama-California International Exposition said defendant is conducting upon what is known as the “Isthmus,” in the exposition grounds, a public resort and place of amusement and entertainment designated and known as the “Sultan’s Harem,” which for an admission is open to the general public; that since about March 18,1916, to the time of filing the complaint, said defendant Joseph Weis, as a part of the entertainment so given in said Sultan’s Harem, has employed Jane Doe and Mary Roe as such employees to make, and who do make, in the presence of a large number of men, women, and children, a public exhibition and exposure of their naked persons ánd private parts thereof to those attending said place, and which exhibition, as alleged, is indecent and offensive to the senses ; that such exhibition constitutes a public nuisance, and will continue to constitute such nuisance unless restrained by the court; followed by a prayer for an injunction.

The demurrer interposed to this complaint was overruled by the court, which, as alleged in the petition, threatens to and will, unless restrained by this court, grant an injunction as prayed for in the complaint.

Related research

207 Mo. 439, [123 Am. St. Rep. 393, 13 Ann. Cas. 787, 15 L. R. A. (N. S.) 747, 105 S. W. 1078] : “A court of equity will not undertake to enforce the criminal law. Therefore, it will not enjoin the commission of a threatened act merely because the act would be a crime, but, on the other hand, neither will it withhold its equitable relief in a case in which, for other reasons, it has jurisdiction, merely because the act when committed would be a crime. An act displayed before a public audience which is debasing in its character, debauching in its influence on public morals, and brutalizing in its effect on the spectators is a public nuisance, which a court of equity has jurisdiction to enjoin, and the court is not robbed of its jurisdiction merely because the act besides being a nuisance is also a crime. ’ ’ While the acts here complained of clearly constitute a crime, they also constitute a nuisance within the meaning of section 3479 of the Civil Code, which defines a nuisance as “Anything which is . . . indecent or offensive to the senses, ... so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property. . . .” And section 3480 of the same code defines a public nuisance as “one which affects at the same time an entire community or neighborhood, or any considerable number of persons, although the extent of the annoyance or damage inflicted upon individuals may be unequal.” Mr. Joyce in his work on Nuisances (section 409) says: “A disorderly and disreputable theater may be enjoined, although a common nuisance.” To the same effect is Wood on Nuisances (section 68), where it is said: “A public exhibition of any kind that tends to the corruption of morals, to a disturbance of the peace, or of the general good order and welfare of society, is a public nuisance. Under this head are included . . . obscene pictures, and any and all exhibitions, the natural tendency of which is to pander to vicious . . . and disorderly members of society.” Says

AI Brief

Synopsis

SHAW, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief