Ramey v. State
| Decision Date | 27 April 1898 |
| Citation | 45 S.W. 489 |
| Parties | RAMEY v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from Bee county court; Felix J. Hart, Judge.
Sallie Ramey was convicted of keeping a disorderly house, and appealed. Reversed.
Hill & Dougherty, for appellant. W. W. Walling and Mann Trice, for the State.
Appellant was convicted of keeping a disorderly house, and her punishment assessed at a fine of $200, hence this appeal.
The proof showed that the appellant was the owner of the house in question, and that she was the only inmate of said house. Appellant asked certain charges, which were refused by the court; and this raises the question whether or not, under such state of case, a person can be guilty of keeping a disorderly house. The clause of the statute under which this prosecution was brought is as follows: "A disorderly house is one kept for prostitution." Pen. Code 1895, art. 359. The general definition of a prostitute "is a female given to indiscriminate lewdness for gain." See 19 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, p. 291. In Springer v. State, 16 Tex. App. 593, Judge Willson draws a distinction between a common prostitute and a prostitute. He says: "A woman may be a prostitute, and yet have illicit connection with one man only; but, to be a common prostitute, her lewdness must be more general and indiscriminate." In North Carolina it is held "that an indictment for keeping a bawdy house cannot be sustained, where the proof merely shows that the owner of the house was unchaste, lived by herself, and habitually admits one or many men to an illicit cohabitation with her." See State v. Evans, 27 N. C. 603. In other states, however, it is held differently, it being held "that the fact of keeping a house to which men resort for the purpose of prostitution, and that frequent acts of prostitution are there committed, and that the house has that reputation, is sufficient to constitute the keeping of a house of ill fame, though it is not shown that any woman other than the defendant engaged in prostitution in the house. See 2 McClain, Cr. Law, § 1138, citing People v. Mallette, 79 Mich. 600, 44 N. W. 962; Fahnestock v. State, 102 Ind. 156, 1 N. E. 372.
We hold, that, under our statute, a disorderly house can be kept, although it is shown that but one prostitute inhabited said house, where the other essential elements of the offense are proved. The proof showed that appellant was the owner of the house. The state also offered proof that it was known as a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hesselmeyer
...v. State, 102 Ind. 156; State v. Gill, 129 N.W. 821, 150 Iowa 210; People v. Mallette, 44 N.W. 962; Bates v. State, 76 S.W. 462; Ramey v. State, 45 S.W. 489. (4) Single act prostitution or habitual acts by one person will constitute a house a bawdyhouse when evidence shows it to be a common......
-
Golden v. State
...general reputation of the character of the women residing at or frequenting the house. Sylvester v. State, 42 Tex. 496; Ramey v. State, 39 Tex. Cr. R. 200, 45 S. W. 489; Owens v. State, 53 Tex. Cr. R. 1, 108 S. W. 379; Morris v. State, 38 Tex. 603; Golden v. State, 34 Tex. Cr. R. 143, 29 S.......
-
Cox v. State
...more general and indiscriminate than to have illicit intercourse with the one man only. This is quoted and approved in Ramey v. State, 39 Tex. Cr. R. 203, 45 S. W. 489. In 32 Cyc. 731, as to what is prostitution, or a common prostitute, it is said: "It is the practice of a female offering h......
-
Smith v. State
...reputation of the character of the women residing at or frequenting the house," citing Sylvester v. State, 42 Tex. 496; Ramey v. State, 39 Tex. Cr. R. 200, 45 S. W. 489; Owens v. State, 53 Tex. Cr. R. 1, 108 S. W. 379; Morris v. State, 38 Tex. 603; Golden v. State, 34 Tex. Cr. R. 143, 29 S.......