Case Name: Brockway vs. The People
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1842-05
Citations: 2 Hill & Den. 558
Docket Number: 
Parties: Brockway vs. The People.
Judges: 
Reporter: Hill's Reports
Volume: 2
Pages: 558–565

Head Matter:
Brockway vs. The People.
Every act done in furtherance of a misdemeanor is not the subject of indictment; but to constitute it such, it must tend directly and immediately, if not neeessajály, to the commission of the misdemeanor.
Hence, the renting of a house to a woman of ill fame, with the intent that it shall be kept for purposes of public prostitution, is not an offence punishable by indictment, though it be so kept afterward.
Cowen, J. dissented, holding that the lessor of a house demised and kept for such purposes might be indicted as the keeper of it.
Error to the mayor’s court of the city of Albany, where Brockway was found guilty under an indictment charging him with having demised his house in the city of Albany to be kept as a common bawdy house, and that it was so kept. It appeared on the trial, ■ that the prisoner entered into a contract with one Julia Ann McKinney, dated Janu arv 30th, 1841, by which he agreed to give her a quit claim deed of a certain house and lot of ground in Albany on the 30th of January, 1857; in consideration of which she agreed to pay him ¡$5000, in instalments of $6 per week, until the time appointed for executing the deed; she in the mean time to have possession of the premises. It was also agreed, that in case the said Julia should fail to fulfil the contract on her part, the said Brockway might re-enter upon the premises the same as if occupied by the former as. tenant, and the tenancy had expired. Evidence was given on the part of the prosecution tending to prove, that the house was in fact let to be kept as a brothel, and that the contract was a mere contrivance of the prisoner to avoid criminal responsibility. It further appeared, that Julia took possession of the house immediately after the execution of the contract, and had ever since kept it as a house of ill fame. Among other items of proof to establish the latter fact, the district attorney proposed evidence of general reputation that the character of the house was bad. The prisoner’s counsel objected, but the court received the evidence. The court charged the jury, among other things, that if they were satisfied the contract in question was made for the purpose of evading the consequences of an open letting of the premises, they would be justified in finding that Julia Ann McKinney was a tenant of the prisoner; and that if they believed the house was kept with the knowledge of the latter as a house of public prostitution, he was guilty of the offence charged in the indictment. The prisoner’s counsel excepted. The jury found a verdict of guilty, upon which judgment was rendered; and the prisoner sued out a writ of error.
J Koon, for the plaintiff in error.
H. G. Wheaton, (district attorney,) for the people.

Opinion:
Nelson, Ch. J.
It will be admitted by all, that the act of renting a dwelling house to be kept for purposes of pub- lie prostitution, is, in itself, highly indecent and immoral, evincing a mind deeply depraved and profligate. Indeed, the act is so characterised by the common law, which denounces the contract as illegal and void; But I cannot say that it constitutes a criminal offence punishable by indictment. We have no statute on the subject; and I have been unable to find, after a good deal of search, any precedent or authority in the English common law which would warrant me in sustaining, as I am certainly inclined to do, the conviction in this case. The present indictment is probably the first experiment of the kind in this state, though the offence charged must have been of no uncommon occurrence in oiir principal cities and towns, even conceding the morals of their inhabitants to be as -exemplary as those of like places in other states and countries. The legislature have repeatedly acted upon this and kindred subjects, for the purpose of a more effectual suppression of vice and immorality; but have not noticed the particular case before us. (See 1 R. S. 645, 6, 7, 2d ed.; also 2 id. 586, § 29.) It is true, that the act for which the prisoner was convicted in this case, has been held to be a misdemeanor in a sister state; (Commonwealth v. Harrington, 3 Pick. R. 26;) but the indictment there was sustained upon the principle of the case of King v. Phillips, (6 East, 464.) where it was held, that an endeavor to provoke another, by letter, to commit the misdemeanor of sending a challenge to figljt a duel, was of itself a misdemeanor. The latter case is in many particulars analogous to the one under consideration; as the renting of a house for the purposes of prostitution may be said, in one sense, to encourage and aid the lessee in the commission of a misdemeanor. But the act of renting, as tending to this result, is certainly more remote and indirect than the sending of an irritating and provoking message to another for the express purpose of inducing him to return a challenge. In one case, the means are furnished by Avhieh the party is enabled to perpetrate the crime ; while in the other, the act tends directly and immediately to its accomplishment. Would an armorer who should furnish weapons for a hostile meeting between persons about to engage in a duel, be guilty of a misdemeanor? Or would the like consequences result to a cabinet maker who should provide furniture for a house of ill fame with full knowledge of the purposes for which it was obtained ? It cannot be pretended that either would be adjudged guilty of a crime; and yet the same reasons exist for sustaining a conviction in those cases, as in the one under consideration.
The act of sending a challenge or of endeavoring to excite and provoke a challenge, is indictable as a misdemeanor, because it tends directly and immediately to a breach of the peace; but it is not every harsh and irritating word or speech, though in a measure tending to this result, that constitutes an offence. Thus, it is no crime to call a man a liar or a knave, for the reason that the use of these epithets is too remotely dangerous to the public peace to become the subject of an indictment. (Regina v. Langley, 2 Ld. Raym. 1029; S. C., 6 Mod. 124; 1 Russell on Cr. 276.) Neither is every act done for the promotion of vice and immorality, or tending to that end, the subject of criminal cognizance, even where -the immorality itself is indictable at common law or by statute. The tendency of the act complained of must, at least, be such as directly and immediately, if not necessarily, leads to the commission of criminal immorality.
The public are pretty well guarded against the offence of keeping houses of ill fame. The keepers of them are subject to indictment at common , law, and may be proceeded against as disorderly persons under the statute. Individuals in the habit of resorting to such places may also be punished as disorderly persons. The landlord of a house let for purposes of prostitution, cannot recover his rent; (Lloyd v. Johnson, 1 Bos. & Pull. 340, 341, and cases there cited; Girardy v. Richardson, 1 Esp. Rep. 13;) nor can a merchant or artizan collect the price of articles furnished under the expectation of being paid out of the profits of prostitution; (Bowry v. Bennet, 1 Campb. 348;) nor can a housekeeper recover the price of lodgings let with like expectations. (1 Selw. N. P. 68.)
In the absence of any precedent or authority in the common law either in England or this state, and for the reason that so many statute regulations and judicial decisions have been made having for their object the suppression of the offence out of which this indictment has .grown, without even hinting at the particular offence charged, I prefer leaving it to the legislature to declare its criminality, if deemed expedient to impress that .character upon the act; and am of opinion, therefore, that the judgment should be reversed.
Bronson, J. concurred with the Chief Justice.
а) See 2 Chitty's Cr. Law, 39, note (f) Am. ed. 1835; Martin v. Stilwell, (13 John. R. 275;) Commonwealth v. Stewart, (1 Serg. & Rawle, 342.)
See Brooks v. The State, (2 Yerg. R. 482,) where it was held that they were indictable.