People v. Clayton

Decision Date08 December 1926
Docket NumberNo. 117.,117.
Citation211 N.W. 42,236 Mich. 692
PartiesPEOPLE v. CLAYTON.
CourtMichigan Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Error to Recorder's Court of Detroit; John V. Brennan, Judge.

Fay Clayton was convicted of keeping and maintaining a house of ill fame, resorted to for the purpose of prostitution and lewdness, and she brings error. Affirmed.

Argued before BIRD, C. J., and SHARPE, SNOW, STEERE, FELLOWS, WIEST, CLARK, and McDONALD, JJ.Thomas L. Dalton and Frederick P. Hempel, both of Detroit, for appellant.

Andrew F. Dougherty, Atty. Gen., and Robert M. Toms, Pros. Atty., and Seward F. Nichols, Asst. Pros. Atty., both of Detroit, for the People.

SHARPE, J.

The defendant reviews her conviction on the charge of keeping and maintaining a house of ill fame resorted to for the purpose of prostitution and lewdness and the denial of her motion for a new trial by writ of error.

About 1:30 in the morning of October 25, 1925, several police officers went to 2226 Brush street, in the city of Detroit. One of them, a policewoman, had a warrant to arrest one Rebecca Trombly on a charge of pandering. She was admitted by defendant. Four men were intercepted in an effort to escape by the back door. Rebecca Trombly and a girl named Donna Walker were found hidden in the basement. One of the officers testified:

‘At that time I did have a conversation with Fay Clayton. Well I found a gun on her bed, and I asked her why she had the gun there; and she said, well, that she lived there all the time, and she didn't have any other protection, and she did not employ a steady maid. She says: ‘You know, when you are in my business, if you are not around all the time to watch the trade, the girls cheat on you, they have men come here, and they don't tell you about it, and as long as I am in the business, I might as well get all that is coming to me.’ She said: ‘After the girls go home, I am afraid to stay alone, so I have a dog downstairs and I have a gun upstairs for protection.’ She said, or she wondered why I had Miss Breen with me. She said: ‘Did you expect to find any girls here?’ I told her why we thought so, and she said: ‘Well, both you and Miss Breen know all my girls, because they are registered women.’ I asked her where the girls were, and she said. ‘Well, you know when the law comes they make a getaway. Very likely they went out the small window on the first floor at the side.’ I said: ‘I didn't think that was possible because we had the house surrounded.’ Then she said she didn't know where they were. I said: ‘I undertand you have a few traps in the house.’ She said, ‘Yes,’ and she showed me one in the front room back of the dresser, a panel in the wall. She said that is all they had.'

She also testified that defendant said that--

She paid $75 a month rent; that she didn't know who the owner was; she paid it to some agent.’

The girls when discovered were but partially dressed. Some of the men found in the house said they were customers, and the girls said they came there to work.

Another of the officers testified:

‘I asked her where the girls had gone to, and she said: ‘Well, you ought to know better than to come here on Saturday night, because the girls don't like to get arrested on Saturday night; they have to stay in over Sunday in the Detention Home if they are arrested, and, of course, when you...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • People v. Joseph
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • June 2, 1970
    ...its omission is not shown to have been prejudicial to respondent's case.' 177 Mich. at p. 196, 142 N.W. at p. 1098. In People v. Clayton (1926), 236 Mich. 692, 211 N.W. 42, when again faced with a claim of prejudice at the prosecutor's Failure to make an opening statement, the Supreme Court......
  • People v. Nicen
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • May 6, 1983
    ...apply the law to the facts presented. See People v. Joseph, 24 Mich.App. 313, 318-319, 180 N.W.2d 291 (1970), and People v. Clayton, 236 Mich. 692, 694-695, 211 N.W. 42 (1926). ...
  • People v. Merlo
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • May 25, 1970
    ...made. What constitutes a fair opening statement is largely a matter within the discretion of the trial court.' In People v. Clayton (1926), 236 Mich. 692, 695, 211 N.W. 42, the court, in considering a similar rule 3 requiring an opening statement by the parties, held that the omission to ma......
  • People v. Stimage, Docket No. 143094
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • October 5, 1993
    ...it is reversible error, where its omission is not shown to have been prejudicial to respondent's case. See also People v. Clayton, 236 Mich. 692, 694, 695, 211 N.W. 42 (1926), People v. Nicen, 123 Mich.App. 258, 261, 333 N.W.2d 243 (1983), and People v. Joseph, 24 Mich.App. 313, 318-319, 18......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT