State v. Calley

• Decision Date: 21 December 1889
• Citation: 104 N.C. 858,10 S.E. 455
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: State v. Calley.

10 S.E. 455

(104 N.C. 858)

State

v.Calley.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Dec. 21, 1889.

Disorderly House—Evidence.

1. Evidence that a man was seen in defendant's house at night, in bed with one of her daughters, defendant at the time being in a room below; that on another night a witness saw defendant and daughter in bed with men; that at another time witness saw defendant having sexual intercourse near her barn, beside the road; that one of defendant's daughters had a bastard child, —will not justify a conviction of keeping a bawdy-house.

2. Nor does such evidence, coupled with the fact that witness got drunk at the house on liquor obtained elsewhere, prove that defendant kept a disorderly house, as it does not appear that she kept a drinking place, or that drinking and drunken men and women were wont to assemble there, or that she lived in a thickly-settled neighborhood, or that the people about there were disturbed, or knew of the immoral conduct at her house.

Appeal from superior court, Catawba county; Shipp, Judge.

M. L. McCorkle and F. L. Cline, for appellant. The Attorney General, for the State.

Merrimon, C. J. The indictment charges the defendant in a first count with keeping a bawdy-house, and in a second count with keeping a disorderly house. The evidence produced on the trial went to prove that on one occasion, at night, a witness saw a man in the house of the defendant, in bed with one of her daughters; that at that time the defendant was in a room below stairs; that at another time a witness went to the house at night, got drunk on whisky he did not get there, and lay across a bed until 4 o'clock next morning, and when he awoke he saw a man in bed with a daughter of defendant, and also a man in bed with herself, in another room; that at another time, at night, a witness saw the defendant, along the big road near her barn, having sexual intercourse with a man; that a daughter of defendant had a bastard child, about 18 months old. This was the substance of the evidence adverse to the defendant. She insisted that it was not sufficient to go to the jury to prove her guilt. The court held otherwise, and she excepted. There was a verdict of guilty, and judgment against her, from which she appealed.

Accepting the evidence as true, the defendant was guilty of reprehensible, vicious, and disgraceful conduct on repeated occasions; but it did not prove in any reasonable view of it, that she kept, in a legal sense, a bawdy-house, —a house as a habitation for prostitutes; a house of ill-fame, kept as a place of common resort and convenience for licentious and lewd people of both sexes. It proved that she was a woman of loose morals, —a lewd woman; that she sometimes, it might be inferred frequently, had sexual intercourse with men in and about her house, and that her daughters did likewise, with her knowledge; but it did not prove that her house was a place of common resort for prostitutes...