People v. Smith
Before: Weller
Synopsis
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
WELLER, J.
This action was commenced under the Red-light Abatement Act [Stats. 1913, p. 20] against the owners and proprietors of a place in Seal Beach known as the Seal Cafe and Seal Inn.
The complaint alleges, and the court finds, that the premises were used for the purpose of lewdness, assignation, and prostitution, judgment was entered" in favor of the plaintiff, and from that judgment this appeal is prosecuted.
Much of the argument advanced by appellants is disposed of in the opinion this day filed in the case of
People
v.
Bayside Land Co. et al., post,
p. 257, [191 Pac. 994], and need not receive further notice here.
The main point urged by appellants as ground for reversal is that the evidence is insufficient to justify the findings regarding the use of the property. The building in question was a two-story structure, the lower floor of which was used as a cafe where meals and drinks were served, and music furnished that the patrons might dance. In a separate por
[255]
tion of the lower floor was a grill-room, from which a stairway led to the floor above. The second stery was divided into sixteen bedrooms, for the accommodation of guests. At the times to which the testimony refers several of the rooms were occupied by permanent roomers and a few were reserved for transients.
Witnesses for the prosecution related that nine persons, four of them employed by the district attorney, met at the Tower Cafe, a short distance from the premises in controversy. At the suggestion of one of the women, they agreed to visit the Seal Inn for the purpose of obtaining rooms, and, as she put it, “have a real party.” Agreeably to this appointment, they repaired to the Seal Cafe, and there partook of liquid refreshments, and some of them danced together. Arrangements were made by this woman for two rooms for the party, and, on ascending the stairs, they were met by defendant Smith, one of the proprietors, who asked them to register. One of the men inquired how that was to be done, and another replied: “Oh, just pair off any old way; it doesn’t make any difference; we will sign up.” This was done, each man registering a woman and himself as man and wife, under assumed names. Bight persons were assigned to the two rooms, but shortly afterward Smith notified them that he had procured another room, which was accepted. Two of the couples then paired off, one pair going to .each of two rooms, where they divested themselves of their clothing and went to bed together. The four others, three of whom were the investigators, remained in the third room. Thereupon the woman who had suggested the “party” proposed that she would undress for two dollars, and apparently without waiting for an acceptance of her proposal did so, with the exception of her undergarments. In this condition, she proceeded to indulge in what may be termed her idea of a “real párty,” and raised such a commotion that the housemaid came into the room and told her she should be more quiet.
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)