Betts v. State
| Decision Date | 31 January 1884 |
| Docket Number | 11,439 |
| Citation | 93 Ind. 375 |
| Parties | Betts et al. v. The State |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the Elkhart Circuit Court.
The judgment is affirmed, with costs.
H. C Dodge, for appellants.
F. T Hord, Attorney General, F. D. Merritt and J. M. Vanfleet, for the State.
Indictment by the grand jury of Elkhart county against Thomas Betts and Emma Betts, under section 1994, R. S. 1881, for keeping a house of ill-fame. Motion to quash the indictment was overruled. Trial by jury. Verdict finding the defendants guilty and fixing their punishment at a fine of $ 100 and imprisonment in the county jail for the period of six months. New trial denied and judgment on the verdict.
The indictment charged "that, at said county, on the 1st day of April, 1883, and continuously from thence to the making of this presentment, Thomas Betts and Emma Betts did, then and there, unlawfully keep a house of ill-fame, which was then and there, and during all of said time, unlawfully resorted to for the purpose of prostitution and lewdness by Maud Livingston, Frank Husk, Sylvester Smith and other persons, male and female, of bad reputations for chastity and virtue, whose names are to this grand jury unknown."
So much of section 1994 as is applicable to the offence plainly intended to be charged in this case may be thus stated:
"Whoever keeps a house of ill-fame, resorted to for the purpose of prostitution and lewdness; * * * * shall be fined not more than one hundred dollars nor less than ten dollars, to which may be added imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six months."
It is conceded that the indictment in this case substantially follows the statute, but it is claimed that the phrase "house of ill-fame" has no legally defined meaning, and that hence, in a case of this character, it is not sufficient to merely follow the statute in the description of the offence.
Bouvier, in his Law Dictionary, defines a "bawdy house" as being "A house of ill-fame, kept for the resort and unlawful commerce of lewd people of both sexes," and other law dictionaries and law writers give substantially the same definition. Accepting this definition as sufficient, it has been held, and we have no doubt correctly, that the terms "bawdy house" and "house of ill-fame" are synonymous. State v. Boardman, 64 Me. 523. Webster's Dictionary, in giving the meaning of "bawdy house," treats the term "house of ill-fame" as its synonym. A "house of ill-fame" may therefore be said to be a "bawdy house kept for the resort and unlawful commerce of lewed people of both sexes." The words "house of ill-fame" has consequently a well defined legal as well as generally accepted meaning. We see no objection to the sufficiency of the indictment.
At the trial one Miller was examined as a witness for the State. He stated that he had been acquainted with the defendants since about the first of April, 1882; also with the house in which they...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wertheimer v. State, 25166.
...the charge made therein is substantially in the language of the statute defining the offense. State v. Miller (1884) 98 Ind. 70;Betts v. State (1884) 93 Ind. 375;Benham v. State (1888) 116 Ind. 112, 18 N. E. 454. The charge in this indictment follows the language of the statute. It charges ......
-
Wertheimer And Goldberg v. State
... ... As a ... general rule, an indictment is sufficient if the charge made ... therein is substantially in the language of [201 Ind. 577] ... the statute defining the offense. State v ... Miller (1884), 98 Ind. 70; Betts v ... State (1884), 93 Ind. 375; Benham v ... State (1888), 116 Ind. 112, 18 N.E. 454. The charge ... in this indictment follows the language of the statute; it ... charges the essential elements of this crime (1) the receipt ... or concealing (2) of goods that have been stolen (3) ... ...
-
Donovan v. State
...v. State, 90 Ind. 89;Winlock v. State, 121 Ind. 531, 23 N. E. 514;State v. New, 165 Ind. 571, 76 N. E. 400, and cases cited; Betts v. State, 93 Ind. 375;Johnson v. State, 13 Ind. App. 299, 41 N. E. 550; Gillett, Crim. Law (2d Ed.) pp. 130, 132, 589, and note 6, 709; 1 Bishop, Crim. Proc. 37......
-
United States v. Jamerson, 2135
...v. State, 15 Tex. App. 320 321; State v. McDowell, Dud., S.C., 346; King v. State, 17 Fla. 183; O'Brien v. People, 28 Mich. 213; Betts v. State, 93 Ind. 375; Graeter v. State, 105 Ind. 271, 4 N.E. 461; State v. Brunell, 29 Wis. 435; State v. Smith, 29 Minn. 193, 12 N.W. 524; Territory v. Bo......