Cohn v. State

• Decision Date: 28 May 1896
• Citation: 20 So. 380,110 Ala. 56
• Parties: COHN v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

20 So. 380

110 Ala. 56

COHN v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

May 28, 1896

Appeal from city court of Montgomery; W. S. Thorington, Special Judge.

A. Cohn was convicted for keeping a disorderly house, and appeals. Affirmed.

The appellant was indicted, tried and convicted under the following indictment: "The grand jury of said county charge that before the finding of this indictment, A. Cohn whose Christian name is to the grand jury unknown, did keep a disorderly, public and ill-governed house, and did then and there unlawfully cause and procure certain persons, as well women as men, of evil name and fame to frequent and come together, in his said house at many unlawful times, as well in the night as in the day, and did permit them there to be and remain, drinking, tippling, carousing, swearing indecently dancing, and misbehaving themselves, to the great damage, and common nuisance, and evil example of all the citizens, not only the neighborhood, but all the citizens of the county, and against the peace and dignity of the state of Alabama." The state introduced as a witness one George Haardt, who testified that the defendant kept a barroom on the corner of Dexter avenue and Decatur street in the city of Montgomery; that the building was a two-story structure covered by the same roof in front, but not in the rear; that the portion of the building west of the part which was used by the defendant for a barroom, had been rented by him to women. Witness was then asked: "If he knew the character of the women who occupied these rooms?" The defendant objected to the question, the court overruled the objection and the defendant duly excepted. The witness answered, that he did, and that their character was bad for chastity. The witness was then asked: "If he had heard any loud and unusual noises, cursing, obscenity, etc., in said building occupied by said Cohn?" The witness replied that he had frequently heard loud laughing, talking, cursing and dancing in the part of the building occupied by the women, but not in the barroom managed by the defendant. The defendant moved to exclude this answer from the jury, and duly excepted to the court's overruling his motion. There were other questions asked the witness as to the character of the women, and acts of indecency committed by them, while occupying the rooms rented to them by defendant. To each of these questions and answers the defendant separately objected, and separately excepted to the court's overruling each of the objections thereto. The evidence for the state substantially corroborated the testimony of the witness Haardt; and there were witnesses introduced who testified that they lived in the neighborhood, and had heard loud talking and dancing in the building. The evidence for the defendant tended to show that his wife rented the building and owned the business of the grocery and saloon, which was conducted therein; that she had rented out the rooms to the women who occupied them, but that he, in some instances, had acted as her agent in renting them; that neither he nor...