persons who choose to go to it for illicit sexual intercourse;5 and also tippling houses, kept for promiscuous noisy tippling, or where unlawful sales of liquor are made to all who desire it.6 A licensed drinking-place may become a nuisance because of the disorderly manner in which it is conducted, thus annoying others, though the acts done are not themselves unlawful. So a house may be disorderly, merely because disorderly characters resort there, although the public is not affected. Conduct on Sunday which would not be disorderly on a week-day may render a house disorderly. It has been held that the keeper of a place where the law against usury is habitually violated, is guilty of keeping a disorderly house,10 but this holding is contrary to the best authority.11 § 706. Bawdy houses, or houses of ill-fame.-To constistitute a bawdy house, other women than its keeper must resort to it for immoral purposes;12 but it makes no difference whether the disorderly conduct is perceptible from the outside.18 It is not necessary that the reputation of the house 5 Ex parte Birchfield, 52 Ala. 377; State v. Lee, 80 Iowa 75, 45 N. W. 545, 20 Am. St. 401; Commonwealth v. Kimball, 7 Gray (Mass.) 328; 4 Bl. Comm. 168; Reg. v. Williams, 10 Mod. 63. • Mains v. State, 42 Ind. 327, 13 Am. Rep. 364; Meyer v. State, 41 N. J. L. 6. 7 State v. Sopher, 157 Ind. 360, 61 N. E. 785; State v. Mulliken, 8 Blackf. (Ind.) 260; Commonwealth v. McDonough, 13 Allen (Mass.) 581. 8 United States v. Elder, Fed. Cas. No. 15039, 4 Cranch (U. S.) 507; Commonwealth v. Cobb, 120 Mass. 356; Lord v. State, 16 N. H. 325, 41 Am. Dec. 729. 9 United States v. Columbus, Fed. Cas. No. 14841, 5 Cranch (U. S.) 304; Brown v. State, 49 N. J. L. 61, 7 Atl. 340. 10 State v. Martin, 77 N. J. L. 652, 73 Atl. 548, 24 L. R. A. (N. S.) 507n, 134 Am. St. 814n, 18 Am. Cas. 986. 11 Note to 134 Am. St. 819. 12 State v. Main, 31 Conn. 572; State v. Lee, 80 Iowa 75, 45 N. W. 545, 20 Am. St. 401; State v. Calley, 104 N. Car. 858, 10 S. E. 455, 17 Am. St. 704. But see People v. Mallette, 79 Mich. 600, 44 N. W. 962. 13 King v. People, 83 N. Y. 587; Reg. v. Rice, L. R. 1 C. C. 21; Steph. Dig. Cr. L. art. 180. be bad,14 neither can one be convicted merely because the house has a bad reputation.15 The essential element is the keeping of the house as a bawdy house; and neither its reputation, nor general annoyance to the public. There must be evidence of more than one act of illicit intercourse in the house.16 It has been held that one may be convicted of keeping a bawdy house because his wife and daughter engage in lewd conduct without his dissent,17 although the contrary is also held.18 A house of assignation, where parties meet for illicit intercourse, though none of them live there, is held a bawdy house.19 One distinction to be remembered is that no disorder perceptible from without need be shown to convict of keeping a bawdy house, and no acts of public prostitution are necessary to convict one of keeping a disorderly house.20 § 707. What is a house and who a keeper.-It is sufficient to show the use of a single room in a house for illegal purposes under the charge of keeping a disorderly house;21 and a woman lodger having one room may be convicted of keeping a house of ill-fame.22 The term house implies any building kept for immoral purposes;23 even a boat, 24 or tent,25 have been held to fall within the definition. 14 State v. Boardman, 64 Maine 523; King v. People, 83 N. Y. 587. See also, Davis v. State, 79 Tex. Cr. 321, 184 S. W. 510; State v. Levich, 174 Iowa 688, 156 N. W. 824. 15 Botts v. United States, 155 Fed. 50, 12 Ann. Cas. 271; Putnam v. State, 9 Okla. Cr. 535, 131 Pac. 916, 46 L. R. A. (N. S.) 593; State v. Brunell, 29 Wis. 435; McGary v. State (Tex. Cr.), 198 S. W. 574. 16 State v. Garing, 74 Maine 152; People v. Gastro, 75 Mich. 127, 42 N. W. 937; State v. Evans, 27 N. Car. 603; State v. Flick (Mo.), 198 S. W. 1134. 17 Scarborough v. State, 46 Ga. 26. 18 State v. Calley, 104 N. Car. 858, 10 S. E. 455, 17 Am. St. 704. 19 People v. Hulett, 61 Hun 620, 15 N. Y. S. 630, 39 N. Y. St. 646. 20 Brooks v. State, 4 Tex. App. 567. See also, King v. People, 83 N. Y. 587; Reg. v. Rice, L. R. 1 C. C. 21. 21 People v. Buchanan, 1 Idaho 681. 22 People v. Buchanan, 1 Idaho 681. 23 State v. Powers, 36 Conn. 77. 24 State v. Mullen, 35 Iowa 199. 25 Killman v. State, 2 Tex. App. 222, 28 Am. Rep. 432. All who take part in carrying on and directing the business of a disorderly house are indictable as keepers.28 One who merely resides in the house is not so indictable,27 nor, it is generally held, one who merely lets it;28 but if the owner who lets it has knowledge of the intent to use it for immoral purposes, convictions of keeping have been upheld against him.20 § 708. Letting house of ill-fame, or procuring or encouraging its keeping.-Letting or hiring a house knowing it is to be used for prostitution is indictable at common law,30 as well as under various statutes. But a landlord without control who was ignorant when letting of the use purposed, is not liable.31 Any one procuring, encouraging, aiding or abetting the keeping of a disorderly house is guilty as a principal.32 26 Commonwealth v. Gannett, 1 Allen (Mass.) 7, 79 Am. Dec. 693; People v. Wright, 90 Mich. 362, 51 N. W. 517; Johnson v. State, 32 Tex. Cr. 504, 24 S. W. 411. 27 Toney v. State, 60 Ala. 97; Moore v. State, 4 Tex. App. 127. 28 State v. Pearsall, 43 Iowa 630. 29 State v. Wells, 46 Iowa 662; State v. Stafford, 67 Maine 125; State v. Smith, 15 R. I. 24, 22 Atl. 1119; Commonwealth v. La Pointe, 228 Mass. 266, 117 N. E. 345. 30 United States v. Gray, Fed. Cas. No. 15251, 2 Cranch (U. S.) 675; Smith v. State, 6 Gill. (Md.) 425; Commonwealth v. Harrington, 3 Pick. (Mass.) 26; People v. Saunders, 29 Mich. 269; People v. 31 Blocker V. Commonwealth, 153 Ky. 304, 155 S. W. 723, 44 L. R. A. (N. S.) 859n; State v. Williams, 30 N. J. L. 102; Reg. v. Barrett, Leigh. & C. 263; Commonwealth v. Berney, 66 Pa. Super. Ct. 440. 32 Clifton v. State, 53 Ga. 241; Commonwealth v. Gannett, 1 Allen (Mass.) 7, 79 Am. Dec. 693; Commonwealth v. Harrington, 3 Pick. (Mass.) 26; State v. Engeman, 54 N. J. L. 247, 23 Atl. 676. 8710. Definition.-Fish and game are wild animals, and whatever property there is in them is in the state for the benefit of all its people. Therefore the preservation of game and fish is a proper subiect for the exercise of the state's police powers.1 §711. Regulations.—It is usual to enact statutes regulating the time and method of taking fish and game, and prescribing a penalty for violation of such regulations. Among common regulations are those which prescribe a closed season for hunting or fishing during which time game or fish or certain designated kinds of game or fish, may not be taken, or limit the number which may be taken by one person in a day or season; forbid hunting on lands which are posted; forbid fishing in certain manners, or prescribe certain methods for fishing; forbid or limit the sale of killed 1 Lawton v. Steele, 152 U. S. 133, 38 L. ed. 385; State v. Mallory, 73 Ark. 236, 83 S. W. 955, 67 L. R. A. 773; Ex parte Maier, 103 Cal. 476, 37 Pac. 402, 42 Am. St. 129; Gentile v. State, 29 Ind. 409; Commonwealth v. Manchester, 152 Mass. 230, 25 N. E. 113, 23 Am. St. 820; State v. Shagren, 91 Wash. 48, 157 Pac. 31; State v. Carey (S. Dak.), 165 N. W. 539 (wild ducks); Barrett v. State, 220 N. Y. 423, 116 N. E. 99 (wild beaver); People v. Clair, 221 N. Y. 108, 116 N. E. 868, L. R. A. 1917F, 766n, reversing judgment in 160 N. Y. S. 1140, 175 App. Div. 912 (game birds, "pot hunting"); Ex parte Cencinino, 31 Cal. App. 238, 160 Pac. 167. game; forbid its export; require a license for fishing or hunting; violations of all of which are punishable criminally. Game is so much the property of the state that a discrimination as to the right of hunting or fishing may be made between residents and non-residents of a state or county, and such laws do not interfere with the privileges and immunities of citizens of other states;2 but a game law discriminating between residents of the state living in different counties is unconstitutional. Nor does the restriction on the transportation of game affect interstate commerce.* Statutes are valid which make criminal the having in possession of game during the closed season without regard to the killing even if taken in another state. An exception to the game law made in favor of the owner of the land is not a transferable right. An act establishing a closed season for fishing does not apply to fishing in private ponds. Statutes protecting game protect game birds raised in captivity.9 Prosecutions for violations of game laws are similar to those for violation of other statutory police regulations. 2 Manchester v. Massachusetts, 139 U. S. 240, 35 L. ed. 159; McCready v. Virginia, 94 U. S. 391, 24 L. ed. 248; State v.. Medbury, 3 R. I. 138. 3 Harper v. Galloway, 58 Fla. 255, 19 Ann. Cas. 235. 4 Geer v. Connecticut, 161 U. S. 519, 40 L. ed. 793; Organ v. State, 56 Ark. 267, 19 S. W. 840; State v. Geer, 61 Conn. 144, 22 Atl. 1012, 13 L. R. A. 804; People v. Hesterberg, 184 N. Y. 126, 76 N. E. 1032, 3 L. R. A. (N. S.) 163, 128 Am. St. 528. 5 Ex parte Maier, 103 Cal. 476, 37 Pac. 402, 42 Am. St. 129; Phelps v. Racey, 60 N. Y. 10, 19 Am. Rep. 140; Roth v. State, 51 Ohio St. 209, 37 N. E. 259. 6 People v. Hesterberg, 184 N. Y. 126, 76 N. E. 1032, 3 L. R. A. (N. S.) 163, 128 Am. St. 528. 7 Hart v. State, 29 Ohio St. 666. 8 Territory v. Hoy Chong, 21 Hawaii 39, Ann. Cas. 1915A, 1155. 9 Cook v. Trevener, L. R. (1911), 1 K. B. 9, 20 Ann. Cas. 619. |