Page:Dakota Territory Reports.djvu/395

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page needs to be proofread.
380
SUPREME COURT OF DAKOTA

The Territory vs. Chartrand.


was incompetent, which objection was overruled by the court, and defendant took his exception. The Court gave to the jury the following instructions:

1. "Our statute declares that 'every person who keeps any bawdy house, house of ill-fame, of assignation, or of prostitution, or any other house or place for persons to visit for unlawful sexual intercourse, or for any other lewd, obscene or indecent purpose, is guilty of a misdemeanor.'

2. "The prosecution, to make out its case, must, in the first place, show that the accused party is the keeper of the house alleged to be such house of ill-fame as charged in the indictment.

3. "The question first is, did or did not the defendant keep the house? Or did some other person keep it?

4. "The prosecution is not required to show, by the evidence, any particular acts of lewdness, or prostitution in the house. This is a plain proposition.

5. "The charge may be sustained if the evidence satisfies the jury beyond all reasonable doubt, that the defendant kept the house, and then that it was resorted to by people of both sexes who were reputed to be of lewd and lascivious character, and that it was generally reputed to be such house of ill-fame.

6. "If such be shown, as above stated, you may find therefrom that it was such house of ill-fame.

7. "Was it, or was it not, generally reputed to have been such house of ill-fame? What was the general reputation of the females in the house? This is one pertinent question among the others.

8. "Again, what was the general reputation of the house? What did the public generally say about it, if anything?

9. "A house of ill-fame is a house of bad reputation. I suppose you all well know the meaning of the words, 'good reputation,' or the other words, 'bad reputation.'

10. "I repeat, the law does not oblige the prosecution to show particular acts of prostitution, or of lewdness, in the house. If it were thus essential for the prosecution to show such acts, how in the majority of cases could such evidence be obtained."