People v. Russell
| Decision Date | 30 June 1896 |
| Citation | 67 N.W. 1099,110 Mich. 46 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. RUSSELL. |
Exceptions from circuit court, Emmet county; Oscar Adams, Judge.
Sarah J. Russell was convicted of keeping a house of ill fame, and excepts. Affirmed.
Fred A Maynard, Atty. Gen., and Clay E. Call, Pros. Atty., for the People.
B. T Halstead, for defendant.
The respondent was convicted of the offense of keeping a house of ill fame, and brings the case here for review. There are a large number of assignments of error. We shall not discuss at length all of them. It will suffice to say that as to such allegations of error as appear to be predicated upon the claim either that the offense has not been proven, or that the character of the men who visited the house was not shown to be bad, we think the record is an ample reply to the contention in both respects, but shall not set out the evidence at large in this opinion, for manifest reasons.
A motion was made to quash the information on the ground that it does not correspond in its allegations to the charge made in the complaint before the examining magistrate. The complaint before the justice stated the offense to have been committed on the 17th day of November, 1895. In the information it is charged as having been committed on the 17th day of November, 1895, and on divers other days and times between that day and the 1st day of September, 1895. In this allegation the information followed the proofs taken on the examination. It is permissible to fix the date by the date shown on the examination. People v Annis, 13 Mich. 511; People v. Whitney (Mich.) 63 N.W. 766. If other offenses than that averred in the complaint might be proven under the allegation in the information, a different question would be presented. But the charge of keeping a house of ill fame is a charge of a continuous offense, and no second prosecution could be had for any act antedating the day fixed by the complaint. People v. Cox (Mich.) 65 N.W. 283. And, under a complaint alleging a particular day, proof of transactions on other previous days, the whole constituting one continuous offense, is admissible. State v. Ah Sam, 14 Or. 347, 13 P. 303. A continuing offense may be charged as having been committed on a day certain, and on divers days and times between that and another day specified. Com. v. Briggs, 11 Metc. (Mass.) 574; State v. Bosworth, 54 Conn. 1. The suggestion made at the argument that it is essential that the earlier date should be first named, we think, is without force.
It was competent to show that one of the inmates of the house was a female who had borne the reputation of being a common prostitute. Com. v. Kimball, 7 Gray, 330; Harwood v. People, 26 N.Y. 190.
It is contended that in this case the evidence relating to the reputation of one of the inmates, covering as it did a period of some three years before the time charged, was too remote. We think the testimony not open to this objection. Reputation is not made in a day, and, when once established, may well be presumed to continue, particularly where, as in the present case, the testimony covered the period down to the time in question.
Error is assigned upon the refusal of the court to give the respondent's fourth request, which reads "To constitute the offense charged, the house must be resorted to by men of evil repute, as well as women of that repute, for the reason that the act of prostitution cannot be...
To continue reading
Request your trial