¶1concurring. I concur in the court’s finding that there is no evidence that respondent actually consented to the maintenance of the nuisance in question, and therefore concur in the affirmance of the order appealed from. In view of this finding, it is unnecessary to express an opinion as to the law which might be applicable in case the respondent had known of the maintenance of the nuisance- or had become pwrticeps criminis by renting his premises for the; purpose of maintaining a nuisance.
21 ND 27
State ex rel. Heferon v. Bleth
Decided September 23, 1910
North Dakota Supreme Court · decided 1910-09-23
Action to abate a nuisance. Petition of defendant for the abatement of the action on compliance with § 9373, Rev. Codes 1905, granted-The State appeals. Owner of a leased building used as nuisance under the prohibition law is a proper party defendant in a proceeding in equity to abate it. Martin v. Blattner, 68 Iowa, 286, 25 N. W. 131, 27 N. W. 244, 6 Am. Crim.
Affirmed · Decided 1910-09-23