Espionage Act; 8 and for the commission of criminal contempt.9

§ 143. Offenses involving personal violence. It has been said that a corporation cannot be indicted for an offense involving the element of personal violence, as assault and battery,10 or manslaughter,11 but the tendency of modern decisions is to the contrary.12 And it has been held in at least one state that a corporation may be indicted for involuntary manslaughter.18

§ 144. Corporations in hands of receivers. A corporation in the hands of a receiver cannot be held criminally responsible for the acts of the receiver, or his agents or servants.14 But it may be held

responsible for failure to comply with statutory requirements, where it might have done so without interfering with the receiver in the rightful discharge of his duties.15

§ 145. Municipal corporations and counties. Municipal corporations cannot be indicted either for misfeasance or nonfeasance in respect to the exercise of their governmental functions.16 But when exercising those powers and privileges conferred for private, local, or merely corporate purposes, they stand before the criminal law on the same footing as private corporations, and are subject to indict ment as private corporations are.17 Thus, it has been held that a municipal corporation may be indicted for constructing or maintaining its public sewers in such a way as to create a public nuisance; or for permitting disorderly assemblages on its streets in such a way as to constitute a public nuisance; 19 or for failure to keep a street or highway, or a bridge forming part of a street or highway, in repair and in a safe condition for public use,20 where it is charged with the

42, 26 L. R. A. (N. S.) 710, 21 Ann. Cas. 692.

Vermont. State v. Vermont Cent. R. Co., 30 Vt. 108.

15 A railroad company in the hands of a receiver may be prosecuted for failure to maintain crossing signs. Arkansas Cent. R. Co. v. State, 72 Ark. 252, 79 S. W. 772.

See also Ohio & M. Ry. Co. v. Russell, 115 Ill. 52, 3 N. E. 561, where it was held that a railroad company was liable for a statutory penalty for failure to build a fence, although it was in the hands of a receiver; and Kansas Pac. Ry. Co. v. Wood, 24 Kan. 619, holding that a railroad company in the hands of a receiver was subject to a statutory liability for killing stock, where it had not fenced its line as required by law.

16 People v. City of Chicago, 256 Ill. 558, 100 N. E. 194, 43 L. R. A. (N. S.) 954, Ann. Cas. 1913 E 305; City of Ludlow v. Com., 147 Ky. 706, 145 S. W. 406, 39 L. R. A. (N. S.) 411, Ann. Cas. 1913 D 301; City of George

18

town v. Com., 115 Ky. 382, 73 S. W. 1011, 61 L. R. A. 673, 1 Ann. Cas. 961; City of Paris v. Com., 4 Ky. L. Rep. 597; State v. Metropolitan Park Dist. of Tacoma, 100 Wash. 449, 171 Pac. 254.

17 People v. City of Chicago, 256 Ill. 558, 100 N. E. 194, 43 L. R. A. (N. S.) 954, Ann. Cas. 1913 E 305; City of Ludlow v. Com., 147 Ky. 706, 145 S. W. 406, 39 L. R. A. (N. S.) 411, Ann. Cas. 1913 D 301; City of Georgetown v. Com., 115 Ky. 382, 73 S. W. 1011, 61 L. R. A. 673, 1 Ann. Cas. 961; City of Paris v. Com., 4 Ky. L. Rep. 597.

18 State v. City of Portland, 74 Me. 268, 43 Am. Rep. 586; Com. v. Bredin, 165 Pa. St. 224, 30 Atl. 921; Cơm. v. Wilkinsburg Borough, 37 Pa. Super. Ct. 160.

For polluting a stream by discharging a sewer into it. Com. v. Ashley Borough, 37 Pa. Super. Ct. 254.

19 City of Paris v. Com., 4 Ky. L. Rep. 597. 20 Kentucky.

City of Ludlow v.

"

21

duty of doing so; or for obstructing navigable waters;
or other-
wise creating or maintaining a nuisance; 22 for failure to erect a
bridge as ordered by road commissioners pursuant to law; 23 or for
failure to maintain a grammar school as required by statute.24

It has been held that a municipality is criminally responsible for failing to abate a nuisance on private property where it has power to do so, although it did not create or contribute to it.25 But there is also authority to the effect that it cannot be held criminally liable for failure to abate such a nuisance by enforcing its penal or criminal laws against those responsible for it.26

It has been held that a city may be prosecuted criminally for violating a statute prohibiting the employment of women in any public institution for more than a specified number of hours a day.27 But on the other hand, it has been held that a metropolitan park district

Com., 147 Ky. 706, 145 S. W. 406,
39 L. R. A. (N. S.) 411 Ann. Cas.
1913 D 301.

Maine. State v. Madison, 63 Me.
546; Davis v. Bangor, 42 Me. 522;
State v. Gorham, 37 Me. 451.

Massachusetts. Com. v. Boston, 16
Pick. (33 Mass.) 442.

New Hampshire. State v. Dover,
46 N. H. 452.

Tennessee. Southern R. Co. v. State,
130 Tenn. 261, 169 S. W. 1173, L. R.
A. 1915 B 766; Chattanooga v. State,
5 Sneed. (37 Tenn.) 578; State v.
Murfreesboro, 11 Humph. (30 Tenn.)
217; State v. Barksdale, 5 Humph.
(24 Tenn.) 154.

Wisconsin. Town of Saukville v.
State, 69 Wis. 178, 33 N. W. 88.

21 Com. v. Gloucester, 110 Mass.

491.

22 For suffering and permitting a nuisance to exist by permitting its employee and garbage contractor to put garbage on a vacant lot, and permitting it to remain there. City of Newport v. Com., 108 Ky. 151, 55 S. W. 914.

In People v. Albany, 11 Wend. (N. Y.) 539, 27 Am. Dec. 95, it was held that where the corporation of a

city had power to direct the excavating, deepening, and cleansing of a basin connected with a river, and neglected to take the necessary measures in that respect after the basin had become foul by the aggregation of mud and other substances, so that the water was corrupted, and the air infected by noisome and unwholesome stenches, and a nuisance was thus created, an indictment would lie against it.

23 State v. Whitingham, 7 Vt. 390. 24 Com. v. Dedham, 16 Mass. 141. 25 Such as a slaughterhouse. State v. Shelbyville, 4 Sneed (36 Tenn.) 176.

26 City of Georgetown v. Com., 115 Ky. 382, 73 S. W. 1011, 61 L. R. A. 673, 1 Ann. Cas. 961; State v. Burlington, 36 Vt. 521.

Where it is not made the duty of a city to abate nuisances except such as are defined by it, it cannot be punished for failure to abate a nuisance not so defined. Com. v. Paducah, 6 Ky. L. Rep. (Abst.) 292.

27 People v. City of Chicago, 256 Ill. 558, 100 N. E. 194, 43 L. R. A. (N. S.) 954, Ann. Cas. 1913 E 305.

cannot be prosecuted for violating such a statute where the women are employed in a restaurant which it has no power to operate, and where the regulation and maintenance of parks is regarded as a purely governmental function.28

It has been held that a county cannot be indicted for a common nuisance for failure to keep its highways safe, since it is merely a political subdivision of the state.29 And it has also been held that counties are liable criminally for failure to repair bridges where the duty to make such repairs is imposed upon them by law, but not otherwise.30

28 State v. Metropolitan Park Dist. of Tacoma, 100 Wash. 449, 171 Pac. 254.

29 City of Ludlow v. Com., 147 Ky.

706, 145 S. W. 406, 39 L. R. A. (N. S.) 411, Ann. Cas. 1913 D 301.

30 State v. Hudson County, 30 N. J. L. 137.

§ 146. In general. An attempt to commit a crime is an act done with intent to commit that crime, and tending but failing to effect its commission. It implies an intent formed and also an endeavor to