Case ID: f-cas_26/html/0666-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "THE COURT", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Case No. 16,499.
    UNITED STATES v. JOURDINE et al.
    14 Cranch, C. C. 338.] 
    
    Circuit Court, District of Columbia,
    Sept. Term, 1833.
    Disorderly House — Evidence of General Refutation.
    Upon an indictment for keeping a disorderly house and for keeping a bawdy house, the United States cannot give evidence of the general reputation of the house, nor of the general reputation of the defendants.
    I Followinl in U. S. v. Nailor. Case No. 15,-853. J
    I Cited in Handy y. State. (¡3 Hiss. 207; Henson t. State. 02 kid. 235.]
    The indictment [against Harriet and Hen-riette Jourdine] had two counts: (1) For keeping a disorderly house. (2) For keeping a bawdy house.
    •THE COURT (MORSFDD. Circuit Judge, contra] decided that the general reputation of the house could not be given in evidence by the attorney of the United States; THRUS-TON, Circuit Judge, having changed his opinion since the case of U. S. v. Gray [Case No. 15,251], at May term. 1826.
    Mr. Key. for the United States,
    then offered evidence of the general character of the defendants, who resided in the house, and were the keepers thereof.
    Brent & Brice, for the defendants,
    objected, that as a bawdy house is defined to be a house of ill fame, kept for the resort and commerce of lewd people of both sexes, the character of the keepers is not material. 1 Jac. Diet. tit. “Bawdy House.”
   THE COURT

(MORSELL, Circuit Judge, contra)

rejected the evidence.

The defendants were found guilty upon the first count only, and were fined $20, and required to give security in $200 for their good behavior for twelve months, and to stand committed until, etc.