Price v. State
| Decision Date | 19 May 1892 |
| Citation | 11 So. 128,96 Ala. 1 |
| Parties | PRICE v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from city court of Mobile; O. J. SEMMES, Judge.
Thomas Price was convicted of keeping a disorderly house, and appeals. Affirmed.
Gregory L. & H. I. Smith, for appellant.
Wm. L. Martin, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The maintenance of a public nuisance is an offense condemned and punished by the common law, and, although not declared by our statutes a misdemeanor, it is so regarded and acted upon in our jurisprudence. We must therefore look to the common law for the constituents of the crime. Among the many public nuisances which were made indictable by the common law is that of keeping a disorderly house. It is for this offense the appellant in the present case was indicted and convicted. The second count of the indictment, which contains substantially the averments of the other two counts, charges that "Thomas Price did keep a disorderly, public, and ill-governed house, and did then and there unlawfully cause and procure certain persons, as well women as men, of evil name and fame, to frequent and come together, in his said house, at many unlawful times, as well in the night as in the day, and did permit them there to be and remain, drinking tippling, carousing, cursing, swearing, indecently dancing, and misbehaving themselves, to the great damage and common nuisance and evil example of all the citizens, not only of the neighborhood, but of all the citizens of the county," etc. The indictment sufficiently charges the offense of keeping a disorderly house.
The demurrer to the defendant's plea of a former conviction was properly sustained. As shown by said plea, the offense for which the defendant was formerly prosecuted and convicted was for violating the Sunday laws. This offense is made punishable by statute, and is separate and distinct from the offense for which the defendant was indicted in this case. While, in keeping and maintaining a disorderly house, the defendant may have violated the Sunday laws of this state on one or more occasions, this violation on one or more Sabbaths could not amount to the keeping of a disorderly house in such sort as to merge the two separate offenses in one; nor could the conviction for the one be pleaded in defense of a prosecution for the other.
A "disorderly house" has been defined, in general terms, to be "a house or other place to which people resort, to the disturbance of persons lawfully in the place or the disturbance of the neighborhood." 1 Bish. Crim. Law, § 1046. In Hickey v. State, 53 Ala. 514, this court defines the elements necessary to constitute a house disorderly, in the following language: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Epic Tech, LLC
...44 (Ala. 1985)."Traditionally, continuing activity contrary to public morals or decency have constituted public nuisances. Price v. State, 96 Ala. 1, 11 So. 128 (1891 [1892]) ; Ridge v. State, 206 Ala. 349, 89 So. 742 (1921) ; Hayden v. Tucker, 37 Mo. 214 (1866) ; Federal Amusement Co. v. S......
-
General Corp. v. State ex rel. Sweeton
...to obscenity. Traditionally, continuing activity contrary to public morals or decency have constituted public nuisances. Price v. State, 96 Ala. 1, 11 So. 128 (1891); Ridge v. State, 206 Ala. 349, 89 So. 742 (1921); Hayden v. Tucker, 37 Mo. 214 (1866); Federal Amusement Co v. State, ex rel.......
-
Harris v. United States, 6172.
...or bawdy house, although kept secret from the general public, nevertheless was deemed a disorderly house. See, e. g., Price v. State, 96 Ala. 1, 11 So. 128 (1892); Thatcher v. State, supra, and Cheek v. Commonwealth, supra. We conclude that the government in a disorderly house prosecution m......
-
State ex rel. Arnold v. Lichta
... ... 1126; State ex rel. v. Dobson, 135 Mo. 1, 36 ... S.W. 238; State ex rel. v. Slover, 113 Mo. 202, 20 ... S.W. 788; Railroad v. Young, 96 Mo. 39, 8 S.W. 776; ... Han. & St. Joe Ry. Co. v. State Board of ... Equalization, 64 Mo. 294; Snoddy v. County of ... Pettis, 45 Mo. 361; Rector v. Price, 1 Mo ... 198); yet in this State the law [130 Mo.App. 291] is also ... well settled that it cannot be used as a substitute for ... appeal or writ of error; and that, where such tribunal has ... jurisdiction and its action can be reviewed by appeal or writ ... of error, certiorari will not ... ...