State v. Morris

• Decision Date: 31 December 1919
• Citation: 108 A. 765
• Parties: STATE v. MORRIS.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

108 A. 765

STATE

v. MORRIS.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Dec. 31, 1919.

Error to Court of Quarter Sessions, Essex County.

Kate Morris was convicted of maintaining a house of ill fame, and brings error. Affirmed.

Argued June term, 1919, before GUMMERE, C. J., and MINTURN and BLACK, JJ.

Frank M. McDermit, of Newark, for plaintiff in error.

J. Henry Harrison, Prosecutor of the Pleas, and John A. Bernhard, Asst. Prosecutor of the Pleas, both of Newark, for the State.

GUMMERE, C. J. Plaintiff in error was indicted for the keeping of a disorderly house; the specific charge being that she maintained a house of ill fame at 371 Halsey street, in the city of Newark. At the trial the jury found her guilty of this offense, and the judgment entered upon that verdict has been removed here for review.

It appears from the proofs in the case that on the 5th of October, 1918, the police of Newark raided the defendant's place, and arrested her and two other parties found there—a woman named Webb and a man named Buzzene. These two were taken into custody by Officer Gray, who testified that they came into the sitting room from an adjoining bedroom, and their apparel appeared to have been in such a condition as at least to justify a suspicion that they had just been engaged in sexual intercourse. At the time they came into the sitting room the defendant was in the hall, in charge of another officer, and as Gray testified, within about 10 feet of himself, the woman Webb, and Buzzene. Gray asked Buzzene what he was doing there; the latter replied that he had gone there to have a good time, and that he had paid $3. He then questioned the woman, and she said that she had had intercourse with Buzzene, and that he gave her $3 for it; that she went fifty-fifty with the madam; and (in response to further questioning) that she had had about 10 men that day, and that she went fifty-fifty with the madam of the house. All of this testimony was objected to by counsel for the defendant upon the ground that the conversation did not take place in the presence of his client. The objection was overruled; the theory of the trial court being that it was immaterial whether the defendant was or was not present, for the reason that the conversation tended to establish the character of the bouse. This ruling was based upon the court's understanding of our decision in State v. Liftman, 86 N. J. Law, 453, 92 Atl. 580, where we said that, on the trial of an indictment for keeping a disorderly house, acts of a disorderly character by persons in the house, and what was said by them at the time as a part of those acts, are admissible to establish the character of the house, irrespective of whether the alleged keeper was present or not.

The scope of the rule is more fully indicated in the earlier case of State v. Sweet, 81 N. J. Law, 250, 79 Atl. 1054, where it is stated that, although it is entirely settled that language used by the inmates of a house charged to be...