Boyle v. State

• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: WOOD, J.,
• Citation: Boyle v. State, 161 S.W. 1049, 110 Ark. 318 (Ark. 1913)
• Decision Date: 01 December 1913
• Parties: BOYLE v. STATE

161 S.W. 1049

110 Ark. 318

BOYLE v. STATE

Supreme Court of Arkansas

December 1, 1913

Appeal from Garland Circuit Court; C. T. Cotham, Judge; reversed.

STATEMENT BY THE COURT.

The Legislature of 1913 passed an act in relation to pandering which provides, among other things, "that any person who by promises, threats, violence, by any device or scheme, by fraud or artifice * * * shall take, place, harbor, inveigle entice, persuade, encourage or procure any female person to enter any place within this State in which prostitution is practiced, encouraged or allowed, for the purpose of prostitution, * * * shall be guilty of pandering, and upon conviction shall be punished by imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term of not less than two nor more than ten years." Act 105, p. 407, Acts 1913.

Appellant was indicted under the above statute, the indictment charging him, substantially in the language of the statute, of procuring, by promise, device, scheme, artifice, "Birdie Taylor, a female, to enter a certain house in the city of Hot Springs known as the French Flats, a place where prostitution was then and there practiced, encouraged and allowed, for the purpose of prostitution."

The State introduced testimony tending to prove that the appellant had rooms in a building known as the French Flats in the city of Hot Springs that he rented for the purpose of prostitution. One witness testified that he rented a room from the appellant and witness asked appellant if he knew where he could get a girl, and appellant replied that he knew where he could get one girl or a hundred; that appellant and witness started out on Central Avenue looking for a certain girl whose name was Birdie Taylor. They met her on the street, and appellant introduced the witness and the girl under assumed names. Appellant told the girl that witness was his friend and that he wanted her to meet the witness. The girl asked appellant whether she should meet the witness over at appellant's house, and appellant told her that would be all right. They made arrangements to meet at appellant's place on Tuesday. Witness went up to appellant's room and a girl was in there with appellant. Appellant showed witness the room and left everything in readiness for witness and the girl. Witness hired this room from the appellant and met the girl there, and also met a certain other girl there on another occasion for the purpose of prostitution. Witness paid not only the room rent, but a dollar extra to appellant on each occasion that he met the girls.

The court permitted, over the objection of appellant, testimony to go to the jury tending to show that appellant, on other occasions, had taken other girls and women to his house, and to show the conduct of appellant on the corners of the streets and about certain stores, engaging certain women and girls in conversation, and as to his manner and deportment in introducing himself to them, and about his having accompanied other girls on various occasions prior to the offense charged herein, to his rooms at the French Flats. It is unnecessary to go into detail in setting out this testimony.

The court permitted a witness, over the objection of appellant to testify that the house in which appellant lived had a bad reputation, and that witness was told that it was an assignation house. There was testimony on behalf of the State tending to show that the reputation of the house that appellant was keeping was that of an assignation house. Witnesses on behalf of the State were permitted to testify that appellant had no other occupation than that of keeping the assignation house. A witness was introduced who testified that he roomed with Jack Boyle at the French Flats from April 18 to May 14, 1913; that prostitution could not have been practiced in the house during witness's stay there without witness's knowledge unless it was carried on very secretly. The witness was not allowed to testify that during his stay there the appellant had not permitted prostitution to be practiced in the house. The witness was asked to state whether prostitution was practiced, encouraged or allowed in said house during the time he was there, and he would have answered that it was not; that Jack Boyle did not encourage or allow prostitution in the house while witness was there. He remarked in the presence of witness that he preferred not to have ladies in the house. The court would not permit this testimony to be introduced, to which appellant duly excepted.

Appellant offered to prove by a certain witness that she applied to appellant for a room in the house where the offense charged is alleged to have been committed; that defendant stated to the witness that he did not desire to rent his rooms to women; said that she could have the room, but he wanted it understood that she could not have men calling on her there at that place while she was an occupant of the room; that appellant, after engaging in conversation with her for some time, finally stated as follows: "I believe I will rent you a room, because you look all right to me."

Appellant further offered to prove by this witness that she rented a room from the appellant prior to the date of his arrest; that while she occupied this room she had an opportunity to observe the character of the place, and that the flat was used for renting rooms; that there were no vacant rooms while witness was there; that she...