Thaler v. United States

• Decision Date: 12 December 1919
• Docket Number: 3325.
• Citation: 261 F. 746
• Parties: THALER v. UNITED STATES.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

261 F. 746

THALER v. UNITED STATES.

No. 3325.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

December 12, 1919

Hiram C. Bolsinger, of Cincinnati, Ohio, for plaintiff in error.

Allen C. Roudebush, of Cincinnati, Ohio, for the United States.

Before KNAPPEN and DENISON, Circuit Judges, and KILLITS, District judge.

KNAPPEN Circuit Judge.

Plaintiff in error was indicted under section 13 of the Selective Service Act of May 18, 1917 (40 Stat. 76, c. 15)-- the section was amended by subchapter 14 of chapter 143 (Act July 9, 1918, 40 Stat. 885 (Comp. St. 1918, Sec. 2019b))--for the suppression and punishment of prostitution, etc., near cantonments, as affected by the order of the Secretary of War (evidenced by bulletin of the War Department of January 17 1918), which, so far as here important, designated five miles as the reasonable distance from military places within which the condemnation should apply. The indictment charged that defendant, within five miles of the military camp known as Ft. Thomas (situated at Ft. Thomas, Ky.), did--

'direct take, and transport certain persons, to wit (two men and two women named) for immoral purposes, to wit, for the purposes of lewdness, assignation and prostitution, and to assist said persons for such purpose to find a house of illfame, brothel and bawdyhouse, to wit, the rooms and house known as (giving the name and location of a hotel in Cincinnati), and the said Meyer Thaler then and there well knowing and having reasonable cause to know the character of said house to be that of a house of ill fame, brothel and bawdyhouse.'

Neither the sufficiency of the indictment nor the effectiveness of the statute and regulation upon which it is based is challenged. ^[1] There was trial by jury, resulting in conviction, and judgment thereon

1. Plaintiff in error contends that there was no testimony tending to show that he took the parties named to the hotel for the purposes charged in the indictment, or that he had reasonable cause to know that the character of the house was as charged, or that it was in fact used for such immoral purposes. These questions are raised under a denial of a motion, at the close of the testimony, for directed verdict.

There was substantial testimony to the effect that the two men (who were soldiers in uniform) met the two women (who were before that unknown to them) on a railroad train going to Cincinnati; that on arriving at the depot in that place one of the men asked the defendant (who was a taxicab driver) if he knew of some hotel in the outskirts of the city where it was quiet, and where they would not be bothered or interrupted, and that defendant replied that he did; that the four parties then entered the taxicab, and that during the ride to the hotel the soldier referred to told defendant that he and the other soldier had 'picked these two women up on the train in West Virginia and were out for a good time'; that on arriving at the hotel defendant said he would go in and see if it was all right; that after three or four minutes defendant came out of the hotel and said 'All right, come on in' (one of the girls testified that the soldier first named went in with defendant, and that 'they both came out of the hotel and said everything was all right and safe'), and that all four of the parties thereupon entered the hotel; that the soldier first referred to paid the room rent for all four parties in advance; that they 'did not make it known to the hotel people their purpose in coming,' but that 'no questions were asked' the girls or any other of the parties; that the two couples registered, respectively, as husband and wife, and were assigned to adjoining rooms, wherein the respective couples had sexual relations; that after the four had gone to their rooms they were furnished whisky and at other times beer, brought in by the bell boy, once at least on an open tray, and once at least the bottled beer being wrapped in paper-- the bell boy being each time called for, and each time receiving the pay direct.

There was also testimony that, after the arrest, defendant, in answer to a question by a government officer whether he knew that these people were unmarried, replied that he 'knew they wasn't married, but it wasn't up to me to question them. ' Defendant also admitted that he was in the habit of receiving 25 cents for each passenger taken to the hotel in question (having the same arrangement with another hotel), and that he received the agreed payment in connection with the delivery at the hotel of the four persons named.

A detective in the employ of the city of Cincinnati testified that on going to the hotel on the night in question with the juvenile officer he found one of the two couples in question 'in bed and the other in their room'; that he 'could not say that the hotel had a reputation for renting rooms for immoral purposes,' but that he had 'instructions to go through the cabaret of that hotel for the purpose of picking out prostitutes and other undesirables; that there also congregated there pimps, who are men that live with women, or off of the shame of women; and that these people would visit the cabaret or lobby whenever we went in there, and we tried to get them out of the lobby.' This practice applied, not only to the hotel in question, but to all other hotels having cabarets.

Another detective, who was a member of the Cincinnati police vice squad at the time in question, testified that at that time the reputation of the hotel for renting rooms to people for immoral purposes was bad, and that 'there were prostitutes and pimps hanging around the place,' stating however, on cross-examination, that he did not know that it had 'a reputation for women to go for immoral purposes,' and that on the date in question the hotel 'was not known as a house of ill fame or bawdyhouse,' and that he knew of no other arrest being made therein for...