People v. Ryberg
| Citation | 122 N.E. 545,287 Ill. 195 |
| Decision Date | 02 April 1919 |
| Docket Number | No. 12288.,12288. |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. RYBERG. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Illinois |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Circuit Court, Winnebago County; R. K. Welsh, Judge.
Jessie Ryberg was convicted of allowing an unmarried female under the age of 18 years to live, board, stop, and room in a house of prostitution, etc., of which plaintiff was the keeper, in violation of statute, and she brings error. Affirmed.
J. E. Goembel and Roy F. Hall, both of Rockford, for plaintiff in error.
Edward J. Brundage, Atty. Gen., William Johnson, State's Atty., of Rockford, and Floyd E. Britton, of Springfield, for the People.
Plaintiff in error was indicted, tried, and convicted in the circuit court of Winnebago county upon an indictment charging her with allowing Daisy Roberts, an unmarried female under the age of 18 years, to live, board, stop, and room in a house of prostitution or assignation house, building, or premises of which the plaintiff in error was charged with being the keeper. The house or premises in question was located in the town of Rockford and just outside of the corporate limits of the city of Rockford, in Winnebago county, Ill. The plaintiff in error was sentenced to the penitentiary at Joliet for a term of not less than 1 year nor more than 5 years. Motions for new trial and in arrest of judgment were made and overruled, and the record has been removed to this court by writ of error.
The indictment as originally drawn was in ten counts. On motion all but the first, second, third, and sixth were quashed. The first, second, and sixth counts charge that the plaintiff in error on December 18, 1917, being the keeper of a certain house of prostitution where prostitution was allowed and practiced, situated in the town of Rockford, in said county and state, did then and there unlawfully, corruptly, and feloniously suffer and permit Daisy Roberts, an unmarried female under the age of 18 years, to wit, of the age of 15 years, to then and there stop and live in said house of prostitution. The third count of the indictment charges the plaintiff in error with being the keeper of a certain assignation house, where assignation and fornication were unlawfully allowed and practiced, and that she unlawfully and feloniously suffered and permitted Daisy Roberts, being an unmarried female under the age of 18 years, to wit, of the age of 15 years, to then and there stop and room in said assignation house.
Preceding the trial the plaintiff in error sought a continuance of the cause, and by affidavit in support thereof stated that a number of persons (naming them) were material witnesses in her behalf; that all were in the United States army; that she had caused subpoenas to be issued for said witnesses; that none except one Curtis were found in said county; that all except Curtis were in France or on their way to France; that they were material witnesses and could not be had on account of said service; that they would testify to certain facts therein set out relative to certain acts of sexual intercourse with Daisy Roberts. The court held that the affidavit was sufficient, but the state's attorney, to avoid a continuance, admitted that if the witnesses were present they would testify to the facts alleged in the affidavit. The plaintiff in error asked the court to exercise the discretion granted by statute and require the people, in order to avoid a continuance, to admit the truth of the testimony which the affidavit alleged the witnesses would give. The court refused to exercise such discretion, to which the plaintiff in error excepted.
The house in question was what is known as a two-story dwelling, in the second story of which the plaintiff in error, and one child, resided. This house was situated in a residence district just outside of the corporate limits of the city of Rockford. During two weeks of the month of December, 1917, Daisy Roberts worked at the Chick Hotel, in the city of Rockford. She was 16 years of age on the 10th day of February, 1918, and was unmarried. She met the plaintiff in error in the house in question during the month of December, 1917. On this occasion Lorenzo Brown and Jess Frankenberg, soldiers from the camp near by, were at the home of the plaintiff in error. Complaining witness testified that on this occasion she had sexual intercourse with Brown in a bedroom of the Ryberg apartment; that she remained there about one hour, after which she returned to the Chick Hotel. The next night she met the plaintiff in error in front of this hotel and was by her invited to go to her apartment. On this occasion one Hodges and Frankenberg were at the home of plaintiff in error. She further testified that on this occasion she had sexual intercourse with Hodges in this apartment and saw plaintiff in error and Frankenberg lying on a bed as she went to a room with Hodges; that on December 15, 1917, she again went to the house of the plaintiff in error. On this occasion Frankenberg and a soldier by the name of Curtis were there; that she and Curtis had sexual intercourse in a bedroom in the apartment on this occasion, remaining there all night. She testified that Frankenberg was in a bedroom with plaintiff in error all night, and that the plaintiff in error called her about 7 o'clock the next morning. They remained there the next day and evening. On the 18th of December, 1917, the complaining witness, at the direction of the officers, went to the home of the plaintiff in error. On this occasion the plaintiff in error and two other women were there, with three men from the camp. Complaining witness testified that on this occasion she had sexual intercourse with Sgt. Jacobs in one of the bedrooms of this apartment, after which she signaled the officers and a raid was made on the apartment. The deputy sheriff testified that he found the plaintiff in error and two other women in the apartment besides Daisy Roberts; that the Roberts girl was in the bedroom with Jacobs; that Curtis was under a bed; that Curtis had on a uniform, shirt, trousers, and stockings, but no shoes or leggings.
The plaintiff in error testified that she did not have sexual intercourse with any of the men on either of the four occasions mentioned, and that she did not know that Daisy Roberts did; that she only entertained the soldier boys in her home and supplied amusement, cigarettes, sandwiches, and coffee; that if Daisy Roberts had sexual intercourse on either of the occasions mentioned it was without her knowledge or approval; that Daisy Roberts never went to the bedrooms with the men as by her related; that on the third occasion neither Daisy Roberts nor plaintiff in error slept with the men, as related; that the men were there on these occasions solely for respectable entertainment and refreshments, and not for the purposes of prostitution; that if Daisy Roberts had sexual intercourse with any of these men it was a matter of her own inclination, and not at the solicitation of plaintiff in error or by her approval...
To continue reading
Request your trial