Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1882-06-09
CAUGHT AND ESCAPES.

The Supreme Court Renders q Decision
which Secures Kittie Smiths sentenct
to Stillwater-Kittie Accompanies the
Sheriff to Her Residence and sklps.
A decision was rendered yesterday by the
supreme court in one of the three so-callec
social evil cases, in which appeals had beer
taken from the finding OF guilty in the district
court for this county at the fall term
Of the court for 1881. The case was
that Of the state against Kitty
Smith, in which she was found guilty OF keep
ing house resorted to for purposes OF pros
titution, and the finding OF the supreme court,
the court, was an aff1rmance OF the action OF
the court below. The main points
of the decision of the supreme
court are given below in the syllabus
OF the opinion, and in extracts from the opin-
ion itself, covering the in oortant point
raised in the prosecution and appeal, as fol-
lows:
The State of Minnesota, respondent, vs.. Kitty
Smith, appellant.
Syllabus-Upon trial on an indictment for
keeping house OF ill.fame, resorted to for
purposes of prostitution, evidence OF the gen.
eral reputation OF the alleged bawdy house is
competent at least IN aid of other evidence
tending to show that the place was bawdy
house in fact.
1t is compstent for the prosecution to
prove the lewd and indecent conduct OF the
defendant, herself in the house, in presence OF
the inmates and visitors.
1t is not necessary that the Illicit intercourse
be carried on for hire or gain. The oftense
consists in the public nuisance, and the form
of the corrupt motive is immaterial.
Order affirmed.
MITCHELL, J.
POINTS IN THE OPINION.
In the opinion accompanying the syllabus,
the court say, as to the character OF evidence
necessary to establish the character of q
bawdy house:
"We are aware that there is some conflict
OF authority as to the competency OF such
evidence, and that its admission might seem
in violation of the rule excluding hearsay
evidence, The weight of authority. however,
seems to be in favor of its competency. The
difficulty in obtaining direct evidence in such
cases, has, perhaps, rendered its admission
necessity. And its receipt is not likely to
operate unjustly, for it very rarely, if indeed
ever, occurs that place acquires the genera!
reputation Of being a bawdy house without
being SO in fact.
"Wa do not hold, however, that evidence of
general reputation alone would be sufficient
to establish the character of the place. All
that is necessary to decide at present
isl that evidence OF general reputation
is competent in aid of other evidence as to
the character OF the house. In this case there
was direct evidence of the lewd character and
conduct OF the inmates OF the house, and of
specific acts of lewdness on her part.
The court admitted in evidence against the
objection of defendanta lease of the alleged
bawdY house from the owner of the property
to defendant, and executed by both parties.
"This, taken in connection with the other
facts, also shown in evidence, that defendant
was personally present and living in the
house and exer cising acts of control over it
and its inmates, was competent evidence, tend
ing to show that she was the keeper OF the
house.
evidence of the personal lewd and indie
cent acts of defendant herself in the house in
the presence of inmates and visitors, was
competent, as tending to show her knowledge
OF the character OF the house, and OF her u.s.
sent to its use as house of ill-fame.
There was no error in the refusal of the
court to strike out the evidence OF the wit
ness, Mcmahon, as to the profane, indecent
and disorderly conduct of the inmates and
visitors in the house, on one occasion, in the
pre- sence of defendant herself. 1t Is always
competent in such cases to show the character
and conduct OF inmates and visitors OF the
alleged bawdy house. The facts that the de-
PENDANT was present and st ths direction OF
the police officer subsequently, got the dis
orderly visitors out of the house, were also
competent to show that she was the keeper
and in control OF the house, and assented to
its use as house of ill-fame.
The only other errors complained OF con-
sist of the refusal of the court to give to the
Jury certain Instructions requested by defend
ant. Had these requests been all good law,
there would have been no error in this refusal.
The court had fully, fairly and clearly in
structed the jury upon all points OF law ma
terial to the case, and that being the fact the
court was not bound to repeat it. But all of
these requests were properly refused for othtI
reasons.
In answer to the point m ade that the YER
dict is not justified by the evidence, it is OIL,
necessary to say that we have rarely, il ,vel,
known Of case OF this character where th'
evidence was 30 direct, clear and full, either |
as to the character OF the house, or to the |
fact that defendant was the keeper"
A certified transcript OF the opinion was |
made to County Attorney Egan between 10 |
and IL o'clock yesterday forenoon, and in |
short time thereafter the defendant, Kitty |
Smith, at liberty on bail, was re-arrested and |
taken before Judge Simons and sentenced TO |
six months at hard labor in the penitentiary. |
At the same term of court, as will be re- |
membered, indictments were found against all |
the known keepers OF such houses, the prose. |
cution resulting Tin the conviction of the de- |
PENDANT In the case under consideration. Mel |
lie Otis, aad Emma Lee, the acQuittal of |
Kitty France and disagreement OF the jury |
in another case, when further prosecutions |
were stayed for the time being.
Appeals were taken in the cases OF all three |
convicted, the appeal in the case of Kitty |
Smith being filed in the supreme court Feb. |
ruary 16; of Nellie Otis, March 10, and of |
Emma Lee, March 90
II is probable the decisions in the three |
cases would have been made and given pub
liclty to at the same time bad the appeals |
been made upon the same questions
of law and fact, which was not the case. In
the defense of Kitty Smith it was set up, and |
proven it may be said, that while the lease of
the property was in her name, and that while |
she managed 1t, she was in reality acting for
another party, the question Of bar from fur
Their punishment because of previ-
Gus punishment under the city Or
dinance not being raised, while in
the cases of Otis and Lee, this fact of previous
conviction and punishment under the city or
Is the main ground upon which the
appeal rests.
Ia Will tuub DO cSCI tAdt bHC ucClSlOu Ol
supreme court affords no real indication of
what will be its decision in the cases
Of Otis and Lee, and this, too,
the decision of the
court las thus constituted) in 1879, that
conviction under city ordinance was no bar
10 state prosecution. At that time the
court consisted OF Chief Justice Gilfllan and
associates Berry and Cornell (the latter de.
ceased.) The chief justice then disseuted
from the views of Judges Berry and Cornell,
the opinion Of the court as above) holding
that two prosecutions, one by the city and
The other by the state, could not be had.
Since the rendering of that decision the
court has been increased to five members. By
The death of Judge Cornell, the two old men,
Bers of the court Offset each other-one hold
ing that municipal conviction is bar, and
The other that 1t is not, so that the issue OF the
matter depends upon the views of the question
taken bY the three new judges-Mitchell |