HOUSE OF ILL-FAME. A house resorted to for the purpose of prostitution and lewd ness. State v. Evans, 27 N. C. 603.
A disorderly house need not be a dwelling house. "However lexicographers may define the word 'house,' it is clear the legislature has used it as genetic, and has ,applied it to nearly all kinds of buildings ;" State v. Pow ers, 36 Conn. 77. A flat boat, floating on a river, with a cabin on it, with men and wo men eating, sleeping, and living on it, may be such ; State v. Mullen, 35 Ia. 199 ; so also a tent, of which it has been said, "such struc tures are more apt to become disorderly nui sances than houses of brick or stone, owing to'the facility with which noises made with in could be heard from without;" Elliman v. State, 2 Tex. App. 222; 28 Am. Rep. 432. So it has been held of one room of a steam ship, though the latter is not inn;. Cop. v. Hillman, 118 Mass. 456, 19 Am. Rep. 469. It may be a single room; State v. Garity, 46 N. H. a.
Keeping a house of ill-fame is an offence at common law ; Corn. v. Harrington, 3 Pick. (Mass.) 26; 1 Russ. Cr. 322; 1 Bish. Cr. L. 1082. Such a house is a common nuisance; 1 Russ. Cr. 199; one who assists in establish ing such is guilty of a misdemeanor ; Ross v. Com., 2 B. Monr. (Ky.) 417; so of a lessor with knowledge; Corn. v. Harrington, 3 Pick. (Mass.) 26. So the letting of a house to a woman of ill-fame, knowing her to be such, with the intent that it shall be used for pur poses of prostitution, is an indictable offence at common law ; Corn. v. Moore, 11 Cush. (Mass.) 600. And it is no defence that the landlord did not know the character of the tenant ; Price v. State, 96 Ala. 1, 11 South. 128. Exemplary damages may be awarded against one permitting such house to be kept upon his premises; Besso v. Southworth, 71 Tex. 765, 10 S. W. 523, 10 Am. St. Rep. 814. If a lodger lets her room for the purpose of indiscriminate prostitution, she is guilty of keeping a house of ill-fame, as much as if she were the proprietor of the whole house; 2 Rayrn. 1197; State v. Smith, 15 R. I. 24, 22 Atl. 1119. A married woman who lives apart from her husband may be indicted alone, and punished, for keepihg a house of ill-fame; Com. v. Lewis, 1 Metc. (Mass.) 151. The house need not be kept for lucre, to consti tute the offence; State v. Bailey, 21 N. H. 345; Corn. v. Ashley, 2 Gray (Mass.) State v. Nixon, 18 Vt. 70, 46 Am. Dec. 135; See Smith v. State, 6 Gill (Md.) 425;, Abra hams v. State, 4 Ia. 541; Ross v. Corn. 2 B. Monr. (Ky.) 417.
It is not necessary, in order to sustain a charge of keeping such a house, that the in decency, disorder, or misconduct should be patent from the outside ; L. R. 1 C. C. R. 21; and it has been said evidence of its general reputation as a house of ill-fame is admissi ble; State v. Toombs, 79 Ia. 742, 45 N. W.
300; Graeter v. State, 105 Ind. 271, 4 N. E. 461; People v. Lock Wing, 61 Cal. 380; 20 Ont. •489; contra, State v. Foley, 45 N. H. 466; Com. v. Stewart, 1 S. & R. (Pa.) 342 ; People v. Mauch, 24 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 276; U. S. v. Jourdine, 4 Cra. C. C. 338, Fed. Cas. No. 15,499; State v. Lyon, 39 Ia. 379; State v. Boardman, 64 Me. 523; but evidence of the reputation of the women frequenting the house and the character of their conversa tion and acts in and about it is admissible ; id.; Com. v. Kimball, 7 Gray (Mass.) 328. The reputation of the house and its visitors is sufficient proof ; King v. State, 17 Fla. 183 ; A single• act of lewdness by defendant will not make it a house of prostitution; People v. Gastro, 75 Mich. 127, 42 N. W. 937; nor is it a crime to let rooms to prostitutes for quiet and decent occupation, or to permit a house to be visited by disreputable people for proper and innocent purposes; State v. Smith, 15 R. 24, 22 Atl. 1119. Wharton says : "It has been ruled, though on ques tionable authority, that the fill-fame,' or bad repute, may be proved"; 2 Whart. Cr. L. 10th ed. § 1452; but the doubt cast by this language on the cases referred to is not warranted by the cases, a long list of which, in addition to those above cited, may be found in a note to the section quoted. And indeed the same author in another work says: "On indictments, however, for keep ing houses of ill-fame, when such is the stat utory term describing the offence, the ill fame or bad reputation of the house may be put in evidence. The bad reputation of the visitors is, in any view, competent evi dence. But of a disorderly house the reputa tion is inadmissible, being secondary evi dence of disorder, which is susceptible of immediate proof ;" Whart. Cr. Ev. 9th ed. § 261. On indictment for keeping a house of ill-fame the reputation of the house as such must be proved ; Cadwell v. State, 17 Conn. 467; State v. Blakesley, 38 Conn. 523; but it must be "ill-repute in the vicinity. . . . Rumors at a distance do not make up repu tation" ; People v. Pinkerton, 79 Mich. 110, 44 N. W. 180. But the reputation where ad mitted at all must be connected in time with the person who is now the proprietor ; Sara v. State, 22 Tex. App. 639, 3 S. W. 339. It is not necessary to prove who frequents the house; it is enough to show that unknown persons were there behaving as charged; 1 Term 748. Contracts of lease of such a house, or to furnish goods for the purposes of the business, if made with knowledge of the use intended, are illegal and void ; L. R. 1 Eq. 626. See BAWDY HOUSE; BROTHEL; DISORDERLY HOUSE.