Hunter v. The State
| Decision Date | 01 April 1896 |
| Docket Number | 2,045 |
| Citation | 43 N.E. 452,14 Ind.App. 683 |
| Parties | HUNTER v. THE STATE |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
From the Sullivan Circuit Court.
Judgment affirmed.
Briggs & Lindley, for appellant.
W. A. Ketcham, Atty.-General, C. D. Hunt, Pros. Atty., and W. H. Bridwell, for State.
Appellant was convicted of keeping a house of ill-fame. From the evidence it appears that his wife, who was indicted with him and pleaded guilty, owned the house and conducted the business; he had no further connection with it than that he lived with her in the house as her husband, was fed and clothed, furnished with a horse and buggy and spending money from the proceeds of the business.
Counsel argue that under our statutes, enlarging the rights of a married woman, the husband who only lives off the proceeds of her shame cannot be held responsible therefor. While it is true that under our liberal laws the legal disabilities of married women have been largely removed, yet it is not true that the husband has lost all his common law rights and duties as the head of the family. Although she may own the property in which they live, it is incumbent upon him to exercise his marital powers to prevent her defiling the home by keeping a brothel. If, as here, he fails to do so, but permits the business to be there carried on, and enjoys the fruits of the illegal traffic, he must share with her the responsibility therefor. 1 Bishop New Cr. Law, section 1084; Commonwealth v. Wood, 97 Mass. 225; Commonwealth v. Certain Int. Liquors, 115 Mass. 145.
Some of the authorities hold him guilty under such circumstances, even though he do not share in or receive any part of the profits.
The conviction was, in our opinion, right.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Dahms
... ... The owner or keeper only ... can be punished. State ex rel. Kelly v. McMaster, 13 ... N.D. 58, 99 N.W. 58; State v. Dellaire, 4 N.D. 312, ... 60 N.W. 988; State v. Rozum, 8 N.D. 548, 80 N.W ... 477; Com. v. Wood, 97 Mass. 225; Com. v ... Carroll, 124 Mass. 30; Hunter v. State, 14 ... Ind.App. 683, 43 N.E. 452; Rev. Codes, 1905, § 2764; ... State v. Thoemke, 11 N.D. 386, 92 N.W. 480; ... State v. Kruse, 19 N.D. 203, 124 N.W. 385; State ... v. McGillic, 25 N.D. 27, 141 N.W. 82; Laws of 1907, ... chap. 193 ... There ... must be a ... ...
-
State v. Rozum
... ... § 7605, Rev ... Codes. The husband is the keeper of the home. § 2764, ... Rev. Codes. And is guilty of the acts constituting the ... nuisance when done with his knowledge and consent. 1 Bish Cr ... Law, 654; Com. v. Woods, 97 Mass. 224; Com. v ... Carroll, 124 Mass. 30; Hunter v. State, 43 N.E ... 452; 9 Am. & Eng. Enc. L. (2d Ed.) 531; Black on Intox. Liqs ... ... OPINION ... [80 N.W. 478] ... [8 N.D ... 552] BARTHOLOMEW, C. J ... The ... defendant has been convicted of the crime of keeping and ... ...
-
State v. Rozum
...the wife owned the house did not abridge the husband's right to control its use while occupied as their home.” See, also, Hunter v. State (Ind. App.) 43 N. E. 452. Section 2764, Rev. Codes, reads: “The husband is the head of the family. He may choose any reasonable place or mode of living a......
- Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Hobbs