State v. Buckwald

• Decision Date: 30 August 1918
• Citation: 104 A. 520
• Parties: STATE v. BUCKWALD.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

104 A. 520

STATE

v. BUCKWALD.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Aug. 30, 1918.

[Ed. Note.—For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, First and Second Series, Then and There.]

Exceptions from Superior Court, Cumberland County, at Law.

Benjamin Buckwald was convicted of accepting money from a prostitute, and he excepts. Exceptions overruled.

Argued before CORNISH, C. J., and SPEAR, BIRD, HANSON, PHILBROOK, DUNN, and MORRILL, JJ.

Carroll L. Beedy, Co. Atty., and Jasper H. Hone, Asst. Co. Atty., both of Portland, for the State.

Wm. C. Eaton, W. C. Whelden, and Henry N. Taylor, all of Portland, for respondent.

HANSON, J. This was an indictment for accepting money from a prostitute, contrary to the provisions of R. S. c. 126, § 16. The case was tried before a jury at the May term, 1917, of the superior court for the county of Cumberland, a verdict of guilty was returned, and the case is before the court on exceptions.

The indictment follows:

"The grand jurors for said state upon their oath present that Benjamin Buckwald of said Portland, on the 15th day of June, A. D. 1915, at said Portland, feloniously did accept, receive, levy, and appropriate, without consideration, from the proceeds of the earnings of Sadie Cohen, of said Portland, a woman then and there engaged in prostitution, money, to wit, certain gold, silver, nickel, and copper coins and divers national bank bills, United States treasury notes and certificates, current as money in the United States of America, a more particular description and the value and amount of which is to your grand jurors unknown, the said Buckwald then and there knowing that said money was from the earnings of the said Sadie Cohen, and that she was a woman then and there engaged in prostitution, against the peace of said state and contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided."

The first exception was to the admission of the following question and answer:

"Q. What was the reputation of 63 Commercial street with reference to purposes of prostitution during the summer of 1915, between the 1st of May and last day of November? Answer, it is a disorderly house."

Second. Sadie Cohen, named in the indictment, was allowed to testify against objection that on the day of her arrival, May 1 or 2, 1915, she engaged in prostitution (before the day alleged in the indictment), and that after May 15th, on various occasions she engaged in prostitution at the place above named, which place was occupied by the defendant and herself, and that she paid over one-half the proceeds thereof to the defendant. Other witnesses testified to similar acts on the part of Sadie Cohen subsequent to the day alleged in the indictment, and the payment by her of money to the defendant. Third: After verdict of guilty and before judgment the defendant filed a motion in arrest of judgment upon the ground that:

"Said indictment is bad, in that it does not set out any offense against the common law or any statute of this state."

As to the first exception: Section 20 of the act provides:

"In any prosecution under the six preceding sections evidence of the general reputation or common fame of a house or place shall be admissible for the purpose of proving that the house or place is one of ill fame, prostitution or assignation."

The language used needs no construction by us to show the intention of the Legislature. Various offenses are mentioned in the "six preceding sections," in any one and all of which section 20 applies; its clear purpose being to make use of, and make admissible, such reputation of ill repute, in the highest interest of society, to the end that such practices as are here in question, and kindred offenses, shall be stamped out. The testimony was properly admitted, and the respondent takes nothing from this exception.

As...