
    State v. Frieberg.
    
      Nuisances — Indictment for — Requisites of — Corrupting ninning-streams.
    
    (Decided October 11, 1892.)
    EXCEPTIONS by the Prosecuting Attorney to the decision-of the Court of Common Pleas of Brown county.
    At the October term, 1891, of the court of common pleas, the grand jury presented an indictment against the defendants as follows:
    “ The State of Ohio, Brown County, ss:
    
    
      “ Court of common pleas, of the term of October, in the-year of our Eord, one thousand eight hundred and ninety-one. The jurors of the grand jury of the state of Ohio-within and for the body of the county aforesaid, on their oaths, in the name and by the authorty of the state of Ohio, do find and present that Julius Frieberg and Godfrey Mentz-ler on the eighth day of' July, in the year of our Eord one thousand eight hundred and ninety-one, at the county of' Brown and state of Ohio, aforesaid, unlawfully and purposely did corrupt and render unwholesome and impure a: certain water course then and there being and flowing into and through said county of Brown, and known as the east': fork of tbe Tittle Miami river, by putting offal, filth and noxious and offensive substances into said water course, to the damage and prejudice of other persons residing along said water course, in said county of Brown, contrary to the statute in such cases made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the state of Ohio.”
    A motion to quash was interposed by the defendants, which, upon hearing, was sustained by the court, and defendants discharged. To which rulings and orders the prosecuting attorney excepted.
    
      David Tar bell, Prosecuting Attorney, for the state.
    
      M. F. Wilson, David J. Workunt and Thompson & Fite, contra.
    
   By the; Couet:

The principal objections urged to the indictment are, (1), that three distinct offenses are charged in one count; (2), the indictment fails to state what constituted the offal, filth and noxious matter put in the stream; and (8), the indictment does not state what quantity of any of these substances was put in the stream.

We think neither point well taken. The indictment is in due form, and the motion should have been overruled.

Exceptions sustained.  