Case Name: Commonwealth, v. Fox, Appellant
Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1918-07-10
Citations: 70 Pa. Super. 120
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 90
Parties: Commonwealth, v. Fox, Appellant.
Judges: Before Orlady, P. J., Porter, Henderson, Head, Kephart, Trexler and Williams, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania Superior Court Reports
Volume: 70
Pages: 120–121

Head Matter:
Commonwealth, v. Fox, Appellant.
Criminal law — Keeping bawdyhouse — Evidence—Reputation.
A conviction for keeping a bawdyhouse will not be reversed because a .policeman testified as to the bad reputation of the house based on letters which he had received, and from the report of officers on the beat, but without naming the persons from whom he received the information.
Argued April 8, 1918.
Appeal, No. 90, Oct. T., 1918, by defendant, from judgment of Municipal Court Philadelphia Co., Sessions 1918, No. 809, on verdict of guilty in case of Commonwealth v. Lillian Fox.
Before Orlady, P. J., Porter, Henderson, Head, Kephart, Trexler and Williams, JJ.
Affirmed.
Indictment' for keeping a bawdyhouse. Before Gilpin, J.
When Lieutenant H. Lawson, a lieutenant of police, was on the stand, he was asked this question:
“By Mr. Fox: Q: Now, lieutenant, when you said that this house had the reputation of being a bawdyhouse, state in what circles you meant it had that reputation?
“Mr. Sowers: I object to that question as not being reexamination. I did not ask anything except what his knowledge was in the neighborhood.
“(Objection overruled. Exception for defendant.)
July 10, 1918:
“A. Well, the information I got is through letters that I have received and also from the reports of the officers on the beat.”
Verdict of guilty upon which judgment of sentence was passed.
Errors assigned, amongst others, was (2) ruling on evidence as above, quoting the bill of exceptions.
Ernest M. Tail, with him James A. Durkin, Vitold E. Balukiewicz and Clinton A. Sowers, for appellant.
Charles E. Fox, Asst. District Attorney, with him Samuel P. Rotan, District Attorney, for appellee.

Opinion:
Per Curiam,
This case was carefully and correctly tried in the court below. The assignments of error are overruled and the judgment is affirmed. The record is remitted to the court below, and it is ordered that the appellant appear at such time as she may be called, and that she be by that court committed until she has complied with the sentence, or any part of it that has not been performed at the time this appeal became a supersedeas.