Winegardner v. State

• Decision Date: 23 April 1914
• Docket Number: 22,421
• Parties: Winegardner v. State of Indiana
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

104 N.E. 969

181 Ind. 525

Winegardner v. State of Indiana

No. 22,421

Supreme Court of Indiana

April 23, 1914

From Madison Circuit Court; Charles K. Bagot, Judge.

Prosecution by the State of Indiana against John Winegardner. From a judgment of conviction, the defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Richard F. Broadbent, Barton H. Campbell and Elbert E. Kidwell, for appellant.

Thomas M. Honan, Attorney-General, and Thomas H. Branaman, for the State.

OPINION

Spencer, J.

Appellant was convicted in the Madison Circuit Court of the offense of permitting his property to be used for immoral purposes, in violation of § 2357 Burns 1914, Acts 1905 p. 584, § 460. From this judgment this appeal is prosecuted.

The third count of the amended affidavit, which is questioned here, is as follows: "State of Indiana, Madison County ss: Third Count. Said affiant further swears that as he is informed and believes, on the first day of January, 1912, at and in the county of Madison and State of Indiana, one John Winegardner did then and there unlawfully permit a certain house, to wit: the second story of a brick building, number 118 1/2 South Sixteenth Street on Lot -- in the City of Elwood, at and in the county and state, which he had theretofore let to one Minnie Hart to be kept as a house of ill-fame and resorted to for the purpose of prostitution and lewdness; that the said John Winegardner then and there well knew that said house was to be kept as a house of ill-fame and as aforesaid, contrary", etc. Appellant challenges the ruling of the court on his motion to quash insisting that the allegations therein are "to say the least, doubtful, uncertain, ambiguous, incomplete and defective." This sufficiently follows the language of the statute. One who knowingly permits a house, which he has let, to be so kept, commits the offense defined. If the words of a statute defining an offense are substantially followed, or equivalent words are used, it will be sufficient. Lavelle v. State (1894), 136 Ind. 233, 36 N.E. 135; Hamilton v. State (1895), 142 Ind. 276, 41 N.E. 588; Skelton v. State (1910), 173 Ind. 462, 89 N.E. 860, 90 N.E. 897.

Appellant contends that the allegation of venue is defective. The caption of the affidavit states the proper State and county and the body of the affidavit alleges "at and in the County of Madison, State of Indiana, * * * a certain house in the City of Elwood, at and in the county and state * * *". This is sufficient. Turpin v. State (1881), 80 Ind. 148; Long v. State (1877), 56 Ind. 133; Anderson v. State (1885), 104 Ind. 467, 4 N.E. 63, 5...