Case Name: The People vs. Sarah Rowland
Court: Recorder of New York City
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1822-04
Citations: 1 Wheel. Cr. Cas. 286
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People vs. Sarah Rowland.
Judges: 
Reporter: Wheeler's Criminal Cases
Volume: 1
Pages: 286–288

Head Matter:
The People vs. Sarah Rowland.
It is mineehouse7 be noisy to constitute it a house-rderly
Disorderly House.
Sarah Rowland, a widow woman, was arraigned and for keeping a disorderly house,
The faejs were, that she lived at 100 Chapel-street, next door t0 the cofner of Leonard-street, and kept a small grocery store ; that young apprentice boys and others were in the habit of frequenting her house, for the purpose of drinking and tippling, and meeting young girls. It appeared by the testimony of Mrs. Eldridge, that her daughter had been seduced and ruined in house.
It was proved that young boys and girls had been seen together in the back room of the house at late hours in evening, and it appeared that a number of both sexes were in the habit of going there for the purpose of assignation ; and that, upon the whole, it was a bad house.
M'Ewing, counsel for the defendant,
contended that this was not a disorderly house ; that Mrs. Rowland was an honest, industrious woman, who found it necessary for her support to keep a small grocery—she could not prevent young boys and apprentices coming into her house, and upon complaint being made to her, had always ordered them away. That among the numerous places of assignation and prostitution in the city, it was fair to suppose the seduction and ruin of-the daughter of Mrs. Eldridge in some of those places, and not at the house of the defendant; that there was no noise or tumult in or about the house—the neighbors were not disturbed ; and that the defendant had a family of children who would suffer if the establishment of their mother was broken up.
Maxwell, District Attorney,
replied, that however hard a conviction might operate upon the defendant and her family, it had nothing to do with the verdict. The Court would take care to impose a proper penalty upon her if she was found guilty, as charged in the indictment. It was proved, by the testimony of a number of witnesses, that the house was a harbour for young boys and apprentices —they met in the back room, with the knowledge and by the implied consent of the defendant ; that young women had been seen coming to the house and returning from it in company with men ; and Upon one occasion at least, indecent familiarities were seen in the back room, and that / it was unnecessary to constitute a disorderly house, the neighborhood should be disturbed by any noise or tumult proceeding ffrom it. It was sufficient if immoral practices were permitted in the house, or any acts oí lewdness or improper connection of the sexes, &c. Courts and juries were the guardians of public morals, and would punish any infraction of them as the circumstances df each case required. »

Opinion:
The Court observed that it was unnecessary the public peace or the neighborhood, should be disturbed by a house, to constitute it disorderly. It was sufficient if it was the resort of people for any immoral purposes. A gambling-house, is not always noisy, and no person denies it to be a disorderly hou^e. A house where people go to drink and tipple, is not always a noisy house, and yet it is a very disorderly one. A house where people meet for the purpose of assignation is a disorderly house, because it is a violation of the laws of decency and morality. And left it to the jury to say whether, from the evidence before them, the defendant was guilty of keeping a disorderly house.
The jury found her guilty.