
    Dom. Rex vers. Doaks.
    In Support of an Indictment for keeping a Bawdy House, Evidence of Acts of Lasciviousness by the Defendant while a Lodger, and before the was Mistress of the House, is inadmissible.
    On Trial of an Indictment for keeping a Bawdy House, Evidence of the Defendant’s general Character is inadmissible for the Government, until
    
      Doaks was indicted before the Sessions for keeping a Bawdy House, sound guilty there and fined; from thence the appealed, and it appeared that Part of the Time the was indicted for, the was only a Lodger, and not Mistress of the House.
    
      The King’s Attorney
    offered to give Evidence of some Acts of Lasciviousness before the Time in which the was proved to have been Mistress of the House. He said it was by Way of Inducement, but the Court ruled, that no Evidence before ought to be admitted.
    1763.
    the Defendant has attempted to support it.
    He likewise offered to prove her of general ill Character, but the Court, on that Point too, ruled, that he could not enter into that, before the other Side attempted to support it. ()
    
      
      (1) S. P. Commonwealth v. Hardy, 2 Mass. 318, Parsons, C. F. — “ It is not competent for the profecutor to go into this inquiry until the defendant has voluntarily put his character in issue.”
    
   The Jury, by Direction of the Court, brought in their Verdict “ Not Guilty.”  