People v. Lee

• Citation: 237 Ill. 272,86 N.E. 573
• Parties: PEOPLE v. LEE et al.
• Decision Date: 15 December 1908
• Court: Supreme Court of Illinois

237 Ill. 272

86 N.E. 573

PEOPLE

v.LEE et al.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Dec. 15, 1908.

Error to Criminal Court, Cook County; George Kersten, Judge.

Bessie Lee and Leona Garrity were convicted of permitting an unmarried fomale under the age of 18 years to remain in a house of prostitution, and bring error. Reversed and remanded.Burres & McKinley (Felix J. Streyckmans, of counsel), for plaintiffs in error.

W. H. Stead, Atty. Gen., and John J. Healy, States Atty. (Benedict J. Short, James J. Barbour, and Joel C. Fitch, of counsel), for the People.

VICKERS, J.

Leona Garrity and Bessie Lee were indicted, tried, and convicted in the criminal court of Cook county for a violation of section 3 of ‘An act to prevent the prostitution of females,’ which reads as follows: ‘Whoever, being the keeper of a house of prostitution, or assignation house, building or premises in this state where prostitution, fornication or concubinage is allowed or practiced, shall suffer or permit any unmarried female under the age of eighteen years to live, board, stop or room in such house, building or premises, shall, on conviction, be imprisoned in the penitentiary not less than one year nor more than five years.’ Hurd's Rev. St. 1905, p. 686, c. 38, § 57d. The indictment consists of 10 counts, and charges, in the language of the statute, that the defendants suffered and permitted one Belle Winters, an unmarried female under the age of 18 years and of the age of 16 years, to live, board, stop, and room in a certain house of prostitution located at 75 South Peoria street, in the city of Chicago, county of Cook, of which the defendants were then and there the keepers. The jury found a sepatate verdict as to each of the defendants, which verdicts were in the same words, except that Leona Garrity is named in one of the verdicts and Bessie Lee in the other. The verdict as to Leona Garrity was as follows: ‘We, the jury, find the defendant Leona Garrity guilty of harboring a female under the age of 18 years in a house of prostitution, in manner and form as charged in the indictment.’ After overruling motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment, the court sentenced the defendants to imprisonment in the penitentiary at Joliet for an indeterminate term. The defendants have sued out a writ of error to obtain a review of these judgments by this court.

The plaintiffs in error contend that the verdicts are insufficient to support the judgment. The statute defining the offense of which the plaintiffs in error were convicted is leveled against the keepers of houses of prostitution or assignation, and the offense consists in suffering or permitting an unmarried female under the age of 18 years to live, board, stop, or room in such house. The plea of not guilty put in issue all of the essential elements of the offense with which plaintiffs in error were charged, and the verdict of the jury, in order to support a judgment of guilty, must, either by direct findings or by reference, be responsive to all the issues thus formed. Mai v. People, 224 Ill. 414, 79 N. E. 633. In Donovan v. People, 215 Ill. 520, 523, 74 N. E. 772, 773, this court said: ‘To authorize a judgment against a defendant the verdict in a criminal case must respond to the issues submitted to the jury. Its sufficiency is determined by ascertaining whether it is responsive to and covers the offense charged in the indictment. 12 Cyc. 690. It must contain, either in itself of by reference to the indictment, every material element of the crime. 22 Ency. of Pl. & Pr. 873.’ By reference to the verdict it will be seen that the jury found plaintiffs in error guilty of harboring a female under the age of 18 years in a house of prostitution, in manner and form as charged in the indictment. It will be noted that the verdict employs the word ‘harboring,’ which is not found in the statute defining the offense. The plaintiffs in error contend that harboring is not equivalent to suffering or permitting one to live, board, stop, or room, and that in this respect the verdict finds plaintiffs in error guilty of an act not made criminal by the statute. If this were the only objection, under the rules of law applicable to the construction of verdicts we think the verdict might be sustained. Verdicts are not to be construed as strictly as pleadings, but are to have a reasonable intendment and to receive a reasonable construction, and should not be set aside unless from necessity originating in doubt as to their meaning, or from the immateriality of the issues found, or a failure to find upon some material issue involved. 29 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law (2d Ed.) 1022; Donovan v. People, supra. The word ‘harboring’ is defined by the International Dictionary as giving refuge, shelter, or protection to; to furnich lodging for. Applying this meaning to the word ‘harboring,’ we think that it might well be held sufficiently accurate in the verdict to clearly indicate the intention of the jury.

But there is here a much more serious objection to the verdict. The verdict does not find, directly...