Eley v. State
| Decision Date | 14 April 1915 |
| Docket Number | 22,729 |
| Citation | 108 N.E. 516,183 Ind. 161 |
| Parties | Eley v. State of Indiana |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From Randolph Circuit Court; James S. Engle, Judge.
Prosecution by the State of Indiana against Carolina Eley. From a judgment of conviction, the defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
John W. Newton and George H. Ward, for appellant.
Richard M. Milburn, Attorney-General, Bert E. Woodbury, Horace M. Kean, Leslie R. Naftzger, Omer S. Jackson, Michael A. Sweeney and Wilbur T. Gruber, for the State.
Appellant was prosecuted by affidavit and convicted of keeping a house of ill-fame. § 2357 Burns 1914, Acts 1905 p. 584, § 460. She has appealed from that conviction and relies for reversal on the action of the trial court in overruling her motions to quash the affidavit and in arrest of judgment. The motion to quash was based on alleged lack of certainty in averring the facts in particulars set out in the motion. The motion in arrest of judgment was on the ground that the facts stated were not sufficient to constitute a public offense. Omitting the formal parts, the affidavit contained allegations that appellant "did then and there unlawfully keep a house of ill-fame, which was then and there resorted to for the purpose of prostitution and lewdness by persons, who were then and there of bad reputation for chastity and virtue". The affidavit is sub stantially in the words of the statute. That such a charge of a statutory offense of this character is sufficient is well settled. Betts v. State (1884), 93 Ind. 375; Graeter v. State (1886), 105 Ind. 271, 4 N.E. 461; Woodward v. State (1910), 174 Ind. 743, 93 N.E. 169; Donovan v. State (1908), 170 Ind. 123, 83 N.E. 744; State v. Bridgewater (1908), 171 Ind. 1, 85 N.E. 715; State v. Closser (1913), 179 Ind. 230, 238, 99 N.E. 1057; Christison v. State (1912), 177 Ind. 363, 98 N.E. 113; Lipschitz v. State (1912), 176 Ind. 673, 96 N.E. 945.
The judgment is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sullivan v. State
... ... for lewd purposes, or to state [200 Ind. 45] that the names ... of such persons were unknown to the grand jury ... The ... allegations of the indictment at bar are substantially the ... same as those used in the affidavit in the case of ... Eley v. State (1915), 183 Ind. 161, 108 ... N.E. 516, and upon the authority of that case the rulings of ... the trial court on the motions to quash and in arrest of ... judgment were correct. See, also, Winegardner v ... State (1914), 181 Ind. 525, 104 N.E. 969; ... State v. Bridgewater (1908), ... ...
-
Sullivan v. State
...jury. The allegations of the indictment at bar are substantially the same as those used in the affidavit in the case of Eley v. State, 183 Ind. 161, 108 N. E. 516, and upon the authority of that case the rulings of the trial court on the motions to quash and in arrest of judgment were corre......
- Clark v. State