
    Commonwealth vs. Francena H. Cheney.
    It is no defence for a married woman, who keeps a house of ill fame, and is indicted there, for under Gen. Sts. c. 87, § 7, that her husband resided in the house, and hired, furnished and provided for it.
    Indictment under Gen. Sts. c. 87, § 7, for keeping a building used as a house of ill fame: At the trial in the Superior Court, before Pitman, J., the prosecution introduced evidence tending to show that the building was used as a house of ill fame, and that the defendant was “the head woman,” and ostensibly had control of the house.
    The defendant put in evidence a certificate of marriage and other testimony, tending to show that she was a married woman living with her husband in the building, which was hired, furnished and provided for by him during all the time covered by the indictment, and requested the court to instruct the jury that if they, were satisfied that she was a married woman, and residing with her husband in the building complained of during all the time covered by the indictment, they should not convict. The court refused to give the instruction prayed for, and the jury having returned a verdict of guilty, the defendant alleged exceptions.
    
      
      C. A. F. Swan, for the defendant.
    
      C. R. Train, Attorney General, for the Commonwealth.
   By the Court.

The instruction requested was rightly re-

fused. At common law, and under the Gen. Sts. c. 87, § 7, a married woman may be indicted, and upon appropriate evidence convicted, either separately or jointly with her husband, of keeping a house of ill fame, even if he resides with her in the house, Commonwealth v. Lewis, 1 Met. 151. Commonwealth v. Tryon, 99 Mass. 442.

Exceptions overruled.  