Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1875-09-18
THE SOCIAL EVIL.
rOPInisn of Justice wfntsrs IN the
WashfngtOn street social Evil
Nuisance Cases.

WashingtOn street social Evil
Cases.
State of Tennessee vs.. Maggie Williams ct al
-Opinien and Judgment Of the Court.
The defendants are charged in the wal
rants with keeping a bawdy house OF
Washington street on the StS day of Au
gust last; that they still continue to keel
said house, and will continue to do so IN
less restrained by bonds for good. behav
ior. The question submitted to the Cour
by agreement OF counsel is: Has tn,
Court power under the law to requir,
such a bond, if it shall appear to tn,
Court, upon an examination of the facts
that the allegations in said warrants arr
true2 \
1t is contended for the prosecution
that the Court has the power under the
statute of34, Edward III, passed in A. D.
1861. IL provides that magistrates are
authorized to require surety for good
behavior from all persons who are o.
evil fame, dangerous, scandalous or keep
bawdy women, etc. 0nly one case has
been cited by counsel where this power
has been exercised by a magistrate, viz:
Commonwealth vs. VIM. Duane, editor
of a Philadelphia newspaper, for libel.
Duane was required by the Mayors
Court to give bonds for good behavior,
bat upon an habeas corpus he was dis.
charged, and in delivering the opinion Of
the Court, the Judge said: II am oil
the opinion that it will be most agree.
able to the spirit Of our Constitution,
and most conclusive to the suppression
of libels, not to demand surety for good
behavior before conviction"
The statute wal passed over 500 years
ago for the special purpose of prevent.
ing the disorders which were introduced
into England by the discharged soldiers
OF Edward Ill. However necessary such
a statute may have been to protect the
peace of society from the disturbances
Of so great a number of rowing and idle
yagabonds, as then existed in England,
courts in this country have never seen
fit to exercise the power therein granted
except in Duane's case, and in that the
Circuit Judge said it should not have
been exercised. 1t is commended for the
defense that this statute ia not in force
in this State, and cites the following au-
thorities: Judge Cooley says, in his note
to Blackstone, 255, referring to the stat
ute; rThe subject Of this chapter will
be found covered By statutes in the sew.
eral States of the American Union"
Judge Green, Of the Supreme Court Of
this State, in Estes VS.. Tie State, I'd
Humphreys, 1876, says: But this act of
Edward III is perhaps superseded by
our act OF 1901, chap. ~, iii being our
Vagrancy Act. which is expressly re-
pealed by the Vagrancy Act of oath Of
March, 1857
Under these statutes the Court has no
lower to require bonds for good be-
havior, and the contrary is not claimed
by the prosecution. Again: the defend
ants claim that the statute of 1852 passed
since the decision of Judge Green above
cited, supercedes the act Of Edward III.
Code 1913 provides; Magistrates may
require persons to give security for good
behavior, and to keep the peace in the
manner provided in this chapter" 1t is
not claimed that the defendants are
charged Tin the manner provided in this
chapter" but it is claimed for the prose-
cution that the manner provided 10 this
chapter by reason of the comma after
behavior only applies to proceedings to
keep the peace, and not for security for
good behavior. The Court does not
think the Legislature intended to be so
understood. In Duane's case the Judge
said: Security for good behavior is
more extensive than security to keep
the peace, may be more easily forfeited,
and therefore should be exacted with
greater caution. It is a dangerous power
to give to a single man and may be used
for oppression" The Legislature, there
fore, would not be presumed to give the
power to require security for good be-
haVior wholly to the discretion of the
Court, while it prescribes rules for re-
curing security to keep the peace.
The Court has carefully examined and
considered the authorities bearing upon
this question, and has received valuable
assistance from the arguments and briefs
Of the several counsel employed in the
case, and IS not satisfied that a Justice
Of the Peace in Tennessee has the power
to require such a bond. he has no power
to determine the guilt or innocence Of a
party charged with crime. he can only
make an examination as 10 probable
cause and require bonds from persons
charged for their appe rance before the
Criminal Court for trial, except when e
case is submitted under the small ofense
law. Being 10 doubt as to the existence
of such a power, aud, inasmuek as to re-
quire such a bond would necessitate i'm
prisonment Of defendants In case of their
failure to give security. the Court will
give them the benefit of the doubt, and
will not require defendants to give a bond
for good behavior.
will now hear evidence to determine
whether or not there is probable cause
TO believe the defendants guilty, az
charged in the warrants; and if so, it
will be my duty to bind them over 10 the
Criminal Court TO answer an indictment.
P. NJ. WINTERS, ]. P.
The above decision was rendered this
morning, and on its announcement the
attorney for the defendants waived fur
Their examination and gave boad in the
sum of $500 to appear before the Crimi.
nal Court to answer any indictments that
may be found at the next term.