People v. Bayside Land Co.

California Court of Appeal Jun 21, 1920 No. Civ. No. 3088.Published

Before: Weller

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that premises used for lewdness, even in the absence of actual acts of prostitution or assignation, constitute a public nuisance under the Red-light Abatement Act, and that the proprietor is liable for the conduct of employees.

Issues

Whether the Red-light Abatement Act applies to premises used for 'lewdness' if no acts of prostitution or assignation occurred.
Whether the knowledge or negligence of employees is imputable to the proprietor.
Whether the admission of evidence regarding conduct at a neighboring hotel constituted reversible error.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Lewdness is of much broader significance than the two other words, and includes their meaning as well as all other immoral or degenerate conduct or conversation between persons of opposite sexes”

“The knowledge or gross negligence of his employees must be imputed to the proprietor.”

“It was error to receive testimony of conduct elsewhere, but as there was ample evidence aside from that erroneously admitted, to sustain the findings, we do not consider that the ruling prejudicially affected the defense.”

Synopsis

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

WELLER, J.

Action to abate a nuisance under the provisions of the Red-light Abatement Act, [Stats. 1913, p. 20], The court rendered judgment in favor of plaintiff, ordered

[259]

the building closed for the period of one year, and directed the personal property located therein to be sold and applied as provided in the act.

Separate appeals were taken by Louie White, the proprietor of the place and owner of the furniture, and by Bay-side Land Company, the owner of the real property and building. For convenience, these appeals will be considered together.

[1]

The complaint alleges that defendants “have used said premises, said building, the furniture, fixtures and musical instruments in their possession for the purpose of lewdness, assignation and prostitution, . . . and during all of said times said premises and said cafe in said building has borne the reputation in the community in which it is situated as a house of lewdness, assignation and ill-fame, and a place where lewdness, prostitution and assignation are encouraged and allowed. That on the 30th day of November, 1918, said building and premises were occupied by Beatrice Swanner, Viola Johnson and Irene Fucha as lewd and dissolute persons, and then and there solicited acts of sexual intercourse.”

It is claimed that there is “an utter absence of any allegation that any acts of lewdness, prostitution, and assignation occurred on the premises. ’ ’ It was held in

People

Arcega,

28 Cal. App. Dec. 1188, that the allegation that the building was used for the purpose of prostitution was sufficient. Here we have an additional averment that certain named lewd and dissolute persons occupied the premises and then and there solicited acts of sexual intercourse. We think these allegations sufficiently clear and explicit to inform the defendants of the character of the charge against the property, and to tender an issue.

Counsel indulge in considerable vituperative criticism of the action of the district attorney in employing “stool-pigeons” to obtain evidence in regard to the conduct of the cafe, and cite cases in which the use of such methods has been condemned by the courts. Suffice it to say that in no instance was any of the “soiled doves” decoyed by the “stool-pigeons” into committing any of the many acts of lewdness testified to by the latter on the witness-stand. The investigators related what they saw with reference to the

People v. Bayside Land Co.

AI Brief

Synopsis

WELLER, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief