Case Name: John Moench, Resp't, v. Mary Yung, App'lt
Court: New York Court of Common Pleas
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1890-02-10
Citations: 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 731
Docket Number: 
Parties: John Moench, Resp’t, v. Mary Yung, App’lt.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 29
Pages: 731–732

Head Matter:
John Moench, Resp’t, v. Mary Yung, App’lt.
(New York Common Pleas, General Term,
Filed February 10, 1890.)
Summary proceedings—Disorderly house.
To render a tenant liable to ejectment under the statute, for keeping a disorderly house, knowledge of the immoral acts complained of must be brought home to her, and it must be shown that she had authority to prevent them.
Appeal from final order of the ninth judicial district court.
Summary proceedings to eject defendant on the ground that she kept a house of assignation.
C. M. Preyer, for resp’t; W. H. Knox, for app’lt.

Opinion:
Larreitore, Oh. J.
The gravamen of the charge against the appellant must depend upon her knowledge, actual or presumptive, of the alleged offense. King v. People, 83 N. Y., 587.
It is not disputed that the appellant had an intelligence office tor the employment of help. She was not responsible for the moral character of the many applicants who sought to avail themselves of her services. They were not in her immediate employ, nor had she the control of their actions after their application for services had been made. To hold her liable under a statute which is strictly penal in its character, knowledge must be brought home to her of the immoral acts complained of, and that she had the authority to prevent them. That these applicants gathered in a hallway common to the whole building and were guilty of improper acts without the knowledge or acquiescence of the appellant, furnished no ground for complaint or cause of action.
It appears that several.members of appellant's family resided with her and that the bed cha'mber accommodation of her apartments were not more than sufficient for her use. The dinner table scenes, set forth in the return, may have been the result of over-exuberance and hilarity, but nothing of a criminal or immoral act appears to have resulted therefrom.
As the judge did charge the jury upon one request of appellant's counsel, his refusal to charge the request as to appellant's knowledge of the transaction complained of, was error, and possibly may have misled the jury.
I think the proceeding should be set aside and a rehearing had, with costs to abide the event. ^
Daly, J., concurs.