State v. McGinnis
| Decision Date | 12 April 1910 |
| Citation | 56 Or. 163,108 P. 132 |
| Parties | STATE v. McGINNIS. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Marion County; Geo. H. Burnett, Judge.
Hattie McGinnis was convicted of keeping a house of ill fame, and she appeals. Affirmed.
J.A. Carson and W.M. Kaiser, for appellant.
W.C Winslow, for the State.
The defendant, Hattie McGinnis, having been convicted of the crime of keeping and setting up, for the purpose of prostitution, fornication, and lewdness, a house of ill fame which, it is alleged, she owns and to the possession of which she is entitled, appeals from the judgment which followed. Her counsel contend that the alteration of a section of the Code, which formerly defined the offense and prescribed the punishment for a commission thereof, having been preceded by the clause, "is hereby amended so as to read as follows," repealed the prior law, made the change a new enactment, removed it from the effect of another section applicable to the original act, whereby common fame was made competent evidence to substantiate the averments of an indictment, rendering inadmissible evidence of general reputation respecting any allegation of the formal accusation, and that in receiving proof of such common fame over objection and exception, an error was committed. The section of the prior law when first enacted was as follows "If any person shall keep or set up a house of ill fame, brothel, or bawdyhouse for the purpose of prostitution, fornication, or lewdness, such person, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished," etc. B. & C. Comp. § 1932. For a violation of the provisions of the act thus set forth, the following method of proving the offense was permissible, viz.: "In all prosecutions for the crime defined in section 1932, common fame shall be competent evidence in support of the indictment," etc. Id. § 1933. The part first quoted was altered, to wit: "That section 1932 of Bellinger and Cotton's Annotated Codes and Statutes of Oregon be and the same is hereby amended so as to read as follows: (Sec. 1932) Any person who shall keep or set up, or suffer or permit to be kept or set up, either in a house, boat, ship or vessel, a house of ill fame, brothel or bawdyhouse, for the purpose of prostitution, fornication or lewdness, in any house, room or shop, or other building whatsoever, or any boat, booth or other place of which he is the owner, lessor, lessee, or to the possession of which he is entitled, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished," etc. Laws 1905, c. 211.
Whatever the rule may be in other jurisdictions, it is settled in this state that where a section of an act is amended "so as to read as follows," and the later law sets forth the changes contemplated, the parts of the old section that are incorporated in the new are not to be treated as having been repealed and re-enacted, but are to be considered as portions of the original statute, unless there is a clear declaration to the contrary, in the absence of which it is only the additions that have been made to the original section that are to be regarded as a new enactment. Stingle v. Nevel, 9 Or. 62; Eddy v. Kincaid, 28 Or. 537, 41 P. 156, 655; Small v. Lutz, 41 Or. 570, 67 P. 421, 69 P. 825; Allison v. Hatton, 46 Or. 370, 80 P. 101; Renshaw v. Lane County Court, 49 Or. 526, 89 P. 147. A comparison of the primary section with the amended enactment will show that the language of the former is set forth in the latter without material alteration. As the original section of the act remained in force, notwithstanding the amendment added other clauses thereto, common fame, which serves to establish a character either of a person or to a thing (3 Words & Phrases, 2672), was competent evidence to substantiate the issue whether or not the house in question was habitually used for the purpose of prostitution. It is not to be supposed that the crime of adultery or fornication will be committed in public, or that parties guilty thereof will be taken in the very act; and such being the case, in order to suppress vice of that form, the statute declares that resort may be had to the character of proof indicated, and, such evidence having been made competent by express enactment, no error was committed in receiving testimony as to the general reputation of such house. B. & C. Comp. § 1933.
The court, over objection and exception, permitted witnesses to testify as to the reputation of the defendant's ownership of the house alleged to have been used for immoral purposes,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. McManus
...of houses of prostitution, evidence of the reputation of defendant as the owner of such a house is admissible. State v. McGinnis, 56 Or. 163, 167--168, 108 P. 132 (1910). Cf. 5 Wigmore, Supra, 496--497, § In cases of homicide or assault and battery in which self-defense is claimed to be a d......
-
State ex rel. Caleb v. Beesley
...being incorporated in the amendatory act. Noonan v. City of Portland, 161 Or. 213, 250-51, 88 P.2d 808 (1939) (citing State v. McGinnis, 56 Or. 163, 165, 108 P. 132 (1910)); Stingle v. Nevel, 9 Or. 62, 63-65 (1880); see also Jones v. General Motors Corp., 325 Or. 404, 417-18, 939 P.2d 608 (......
-
Parrish v. Rosenblum
...incorporated within an amendatory act is deemed neither repealed nor reenacted merely by being so incorporated); State v. McGinnis, 56 Or. 163, 165, 108 P. 132 (1910) (restated wording in an amendatory act is considered part of the original statute, whereas only the new additions are regard......
-
Noonan v. City of Portland
...and is neither deemed repealed nor reenacted by being incorporated in the amendatory act. The principle is better stated in State v. McGinnis, 56 Or. 163, 108 P. 132, from which we "Whatever the rule may be in other jurisdictions, it is settled in this State that where a section of an act i......