Wright v. State

• Decision Date: 02 May 1895
• Docket Number: 7339
• Parties: HARRIET WRIGHT v. STATE OF NEBRASKA
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

63 N.W. 147

45 Neb. 44

HARRIET WRIGHT v. STATE OF NEBRASKA

No. 7339

Supreme Court of Nebraska

May 2, 1895

ERROR to the district court for Platte county. Tried below before SULLIVAN, J.

AFFIRMED.

C. A Woosley and W. M. Cornelius, for plaintiff in error.

A. S Churchill, Attorney General, and W. S. Summers, Deputy Attorney General, for the state.

OPINION

POST, J.

It is by this proceeding sought to reverse a judgment of the district court for Platte county, whereby the plaintiff in error, Harriet Wright, was adjudged guilty of a violation of section 210 of the Criminal Code. The information upon which the accused was convicted charges the knowingly owning using, and occupying by her of a certain house or building in said county for the purpose of prostitution. The provisions of the section above mentioned, so far as material to the questions presented by the record, are as follows: "Every house or building situated in this state, used and occupied as a house of ill-fame, or for the purposes of prostitution, shall be held and deemed a public nuisance, and any person owning, or having control of, as guardian, lessee, or otherwise, such house or building, and knowingly leasing or subletting the same in whole or in part for the purpose of keeping therein a house of ill-fame, knowingly, or permit the same to be used or occupied for such purpose, or using or occupying the same for such purpose, shall for every such offense be fined in any sum not exceeding $ 100, or imprisoned not less than thirty days nor more than six months, or both, at the discretion of the court."

The first assignment of the petition in error is that the trial court erred in refusing to quash the information on the ground that the accused had not been allowed a preliminary hearing upon the particular offense charged in the information. It is conceded by counsel that a complaint of some kind was lodged with a magistrate and that an examination of the accused was had on the charge therein stated; and said information not being included in the record before us, it cannot be determined that the district court erred in the ruling assigned. The rule is too firmly established to require the citation of authorities that all presumptions exist in favor of the judgments of courts of general jurisdiction, and that he who asserts the contrary is required to establish the alleged error by an exhibition of the record. The principal contention of the accused relates to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the judgment. The character of the premises in question as a house of prostitution, and the former proprietorship of the accused, are facts clearly established by the proofs, and not seriously controverted on this hearing. It is, however, contended that she was not during the period named in the information either the owner or proprietor of said house, or in anywise related to the management or control thereof. It is shown by the record that the accused, on the 24th day of May, 1893, by written undertaking agreed to sell and convey said property to Mrs. L. M. Gaffney upon the payment by the latter of $ 2,500 on or before the 10th day of February, 1894, and on the day last named said property was conveyed by her to said Gaffney by warranty deed, with the usual covenants. There is evidence also tending to prove that Mrs. Gaffney, in the month...