People v. Salem, 114.

• Decision Date: 19 July 1923
• Docket Number: No. 114.,114.
• Citation: People v. Salem, 224 Mich. 114, 194 N.W. 485 (Mich. 1923)
• Parties: PEOPLE v. SALEM.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

224 Mich. 114

194 N.W. 485

PEOPLE

v.SALEM.

No. 114.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

July 19, 1923.

Error to Recorder's Court of Detroit; Wm. M. Heston, Judge.

John Salem was convicted of pandering, and he brings error. Affirmed.

Argued before WIEST, C. J., and FELLOWS, McDONALD, CLARK, BIRD, SHARPE, MOORE, and STEERE, JJ.Sol Blumrosen, of Detroit, for appellant.

Andrew B. Dougherty, Atty. Gen., and Paul W. Voorhies, Pros. Atty., and W. McKey Skillman, Asst. Pros. Atty., both of Detroit, for the People.

BIRD, J.

The defendant was informed against and convicted of a violation of Act 389 of the Laws of 1919, otherwise known as the ‘Pandering Statute.’

It appeared that the defendant was night clerk of a small hotel situated near the Grand Trunk Railway station in the city of Detroit. He was a brother of the proprietor. One Sadie Stratton testified, in substance, that she and a girl companion rented a room at the hotel for $8.00 per week, and that subsequently she made an arrangement with defendant whereby she was permitted to entertain male companions in her room. It was understood that whenever she desired to take a man to her room he was to register and would then be conducted to her room, No. 30. Her testimony shows that on October 2, 1922, she was visited by a man named Sullivan; that before going to her room he registered under an assumed name, and paid the clerk $2.00; that afterward the clerk paid Sadie $1.00 of this sum.

1. During the trial the court interrogated some of the witnesses, and counsel claim that the inference to be drawn from the examination, and the manner of it, was prejudicial to defendant, in that it gave the jury to understand that the court thought defendant guilty. People v. Kilroe, 201 App. Div. 549,194 N. Y. Supp. 506, is cited in support of this contention. It is quite true the trial court should not permit his personal convictions to become apparent to the jury. But while this is true it is the right of the court by interrogatories to clarify and clear up any matters which appear to be left in doubt. We are not impressed that the trial court violated this rule. Perhaps more questions were asked than were necessary, but we fail to see how they indicated the personal views or convictions of the court.

2. Complaint is also made that the remarks of the court to defendant's counsel tended to embarrass him and to prejudice him with the jury. An illustration of this is the following:

‘Mr. Blumrosen, there is no use getting too gay, because that respondent-the proprietor of the hotel-was in charge at the time, and the transcript was never written up. You understand that they are only written up when the respondent is held.’

Counsel urges these remarks as error, and cites McDuff v. Journal Co., 84 Mich. 1, 47 N. W. 671,22 Am. St. Rep. 673, in support of his contention, where the court says, in part:

‘Appellate courts must presume that one occupying so important a position as that of a circuit judge can influence a jury. * * * Whenever he expresses an opinion on any disputed fact, * * * or compliments one attorney at the expense of the other, or uses language which tends to bring an attorney into contempt before the jury, or uses any language which tends to prejudice them, ...