¶1Information for keeping a nuisance.
¶2It is contended that there is no statute on which the information can rest. Ingersoll v. The State, 11 Ind. R. 464, decides otherwise.
¶3The information charges that “on the first of March, 1857, at, &c., Michael Baugh erected, and continually from thence hitherto, continued, maintained, and kept,” &c.
¶4It is insisted that the Court erred in permitting any evidence of the existence of the nuisance, except on the said first day of March. This is frivolous. The information, *30to the common understanding, plainly enough charges a continuous nuisance. The word “has” may be supplied, if the counsel thinks it will make the pleading more certain.
¶5The judgment is affirmed with costs.