
    The People vs. John Brougham and Bridget his wife.
    On a conviction for keep-mg a disorder ly house, if the nuisance noniinaiedfine only will be less the’ case demands emplary punishment.
    
      Disorderly House.
    
    It appeared by the testimony offered upon the trial, that the prisoners lived in Walnut at the corner'of Cherrysíreet, and kept a house for the reception and entertainment of prostitutes of almost every age, sex, and condition. They had occupied the house from May last, and from that time to the present it had been a continued nuisance, r ' not only from indecent language and conduct heard and °*3served, but from the noise and tumults in and about the house.
    Susan White, a respectable woman, who lived opppsite, that she was disturbed day and night*; that she ... . had made frequent applications to the watch m the neighborhood to suppress the nuisance, and further testified, that11 the husband was not so much to blame as his wife he had offered to give her all his wages, if she would discontinue keeping prostitutes and people of bad fame about the house.
   The Recorder

observed, that the rule they had adopted and had acted upon for sometime past was, that “ where “ ihe nuisance was immediately abated, the court imposed 11 a nominal fine, and sent the parties away on their own “recognizance, unless the case was such as to demand “ exemplary punishment.” He recommended to the prisoners an immediate abatement of the nuisance complained of, and hinted to them that the fine would be only nominal if the jury found them guilty: that a recognizance must be entered into for their appearance at the next term, .in order to insure a compliance with the law in such cases.

The jury found them guilty.  