
    Harwood v. The People.
    On the trial of an indictment for keeping a bawdy house, evidence is admissible of repeated arrests of girls at the prisoner’s house upon the charge that they were prostitutes; that the prisoner procured bail ior them; that such arrests were made at late hours in the night; and that women before convicted as prostitutes were frequently found at his house.
    The plaintiff in error was indicted in the General Sessions of Onondaga county, for keeping and maintaining a certain bawdy house, and for receiving and entertaining therein,» lewd and wicked men and women—for lucre and gain—for immoral and unlawful purposes. On the trial in the sessions, the plaintiff in error was convicted of the crime charged in the indictment, and sentenced to pay a fine of $100, and to be imprisoned in the penitentiary of Onondaga county at hard labor for the term of six months. The prisoner presented exceptions, which were incorporatéd into a bill, and on hearing at a general term of the Supreme Court, were overrated and the conviction affirmed. From this judgment the plaintiff brought his writ of error to this court. On the trial the District Attorney asked a policeman, who had testified, that he had frequently been at the house of the'plaintiff, what was the object of your visits there? This was objected to by the plaintiff; the objection overruled and the question answered. The following questions were put and answered under an objection and exceptions to the evidence in each instance. The witness having stated that the object of his visits were to make arrests, and that at late hours of the night he had arrested certain women found there, naming them, was then asked: Were these girls arrested as prostitutes at ,his house. The witness having answered that they were arrested as prostitutes, was then asked: What was done with them ? The witness having answered that they were taken to the police office, where some were fined and some procured bail, and that the plaintiff made himself busy in procuring bail for them, was asked: Did the plaintiff offer to procure bail for them ? The witness was also asked: When did you last make an arrest there? Did the plaintiff procure bail for them? meaning the persons so arrested. Michael Tobin, a witness for the prosecution, also a police officer, was asked if he had made arrests there, that is, at the plaintiff’s house. The court charged the jury that the frequent arrests of females at the plaintiff’s house, theretofore convicted as prostitutes, was a circumstance to be taken into consideration by the jury, in making up their verdict; to which portion of the charge the plaintiff’s counsel.also excepted.
    
      John C. Hunt, for the plaintiff.
    
      Frank Hiscock, for the People.
   Davies, J.

The indictment charged the plaintiff in error with keeping a bawdy house. It was proved that he kept a house in the city of Syracuse, and to make out the offence, it was necessary to establish the character or kind of house so kept by him. A bawdy house is defined to be a house of ill-fame, kept for the resort and unlawful commerce of lewd people of both sexes. (Bouv. Law Dic., vol. 1, p. 163.) It was essential therefore, for the prosecution to establish the character of the house, and to show the character of the persons frequenting or occupying it. The questions put to the witnesses objected to, only called out the fact that females were found in the house of the plaintiff and were taken from there, before a magistrate, and convicted as prostitutes, and punished as such. This was prima facie evidence of the character of the persons frequenting the plaintiff’s house, and was legitimate and proper evidence, to establish such character. Proof that prostitutes were found frequently at the plaintiff’s house, and were notoriously so, were circumstances bearing directly on the issue, whether the plaintiff kept a bawdy house or house of ill-fame, and the jury would be warranted in finding as they did, from such circumstances and the additional one that convicted and notorious prostitutes were frequently arrested there, that he kept a house of that character. The materiality of the inquiry did not consist in the fact that arrests of such women were made in the plaintiff’s house, but in the fact that women of such character were frequently found there, and permitted there after their arrest and conviction as prostitutes. The inquiry as to the agency of the plaintiff in procuring bail for them, when arrested upon such charges, was eminently legitimate as tending to show his knowledge of the character of the women occupying and frequenting his house. A man careful of the reputation of his house, and regulating it upon correct principles, is not accustomed to have found there women notoriously charged with the offence of prostitution; and for the purpose of fixing on the plaintiff the knowledge of the character of the inmates of his house, and as their character and habits determined the kind and character of the house he kept, it was proper to show that he knew of these charges against them, and that such knowledge was evidenced by Ms becoming bail for them before the police magistrate. The time of making the arrests was of no materiality, except as indicating the presence in the plaintiff’s house of women of the character his inmates were proved to be, and the time when they were thus found to be there, was a material inquiry; and in this aspect, the questions as to the time of making the arrests and when last made, were properly allowed to be put.

In the view we take of this case, and the facts necessary to be established by the prosecution, to warrant the jury in convicting the plaintiff, the judge correctly told the jury that the frequent arrests at the plaintiff’s house of females, theretofore convicted as prostitutes, was a circumstance proper to be taken into consideration by the jury in making up their verdict. It was not the fact that such females were frequently arrested in the plaintiff’s house, which gave point and significance to this part of the charge, but the fact that females theretofore convicted as prostitutes were frequently found in the plaintiff’s house. The fact of such conviction stamped them as prostitutes, and its notoriety, and the circumstance of such frequent arrests must have brought home to the plaintiff knowledge of their character. The character of the inmates of the plantiff’s house determined the kind of house he kept, and if it was frequented by prostitutes, notoriously so, and they were frequently arrested there by police officers, the jury were authorized to find it was a bawdy house or house of ill-fame.

We see no error in the admission of the evidence objected to, or in that part of the charge excepted to, and think the judgment should be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.  