TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

People v. Mallette

The People v. Lucy Mallette

People v. Mallette, 44 N.W. 962 (Mich. 1890)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Michigan Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
February 20, 1890
Judges
Grant, Other
Citations
44 N.W. 96279 Mich. 6001890 Mich. LEXIS 1093
Disposition
Conviction affirmed, and the court advised to proceed to judgment.
Headnotes
Criminal law — House of ill fame — General criminal statute — City charter. 1. That a general criminal law of the State is superseded by city charters, granted prior to its enactment, is a proposition repugnant to reason and common sense, and unsupported by precedent. 2. Evidence that a respondent kept a house resorted to by men for the purposes of prostitution and lewdness, where frequent acts of prostitution were committed with her, and that it was reputed to be a house of ill fame, is sufficient to constitute the the statutory offense, and it is not necessary to show that it was resorted to by other lewd women.1
Summary
Exceptions before judgment from Menominee. (Steere, J.) Respondent was convicted of keeping a house of ill fame. The facts are stated in the opinion.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Grant

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Grant, J.

Respondent was convicted of keeping a house of ill fame in the city of Menominee, between December 1 and 17, 1889.

The charter of the city of Menominee, granted in 1883, provided that the common council “might prohibit and suppress all disorderly houses and places, houses of ill fame, assignation houses,” etc., and punish the keepers thereof by a fine not to exceed $500, or by imprisonment not to exceed six months.

The statute under which respondent was convicted was passed March 18, 1887. 1 It provides that—

“Every person who shall keep a house of ill fame, resorted to for the purpose of prostitution or lewdness, * * * shall be punished,” etc.

It is claimed that the provision of the charter is repugnant to and inconsistent with the act of 1887, and that, therefore, the operation of the general law is suspended within the city limits. The council had passed an ordinance under this provision of the charter. There might be some force in the claim that the law of 1887 repealed the provision of the charter covering the same subject-matter. That point, however, has been settled by this Court in People v. Hanrahan, 75 Mich. 611 ( 42 N. W. Rep. 1124 ). But that a general law of the State covering criminal cases is superseded by city charters, granted prior to the passage of the general law, is a proposition repugnant to reason and common sense, and unsupported by precedent.

The record shows that the respondent kept the house; that men resorted to it for the purposes of prostitution and lewdness; that frequent acts of prostitution were there *602 committed with the respondent; and that it was reputed to be a house of ill fame. This was sufficient evidence to constitute the offense. It was not necessary to show that other lewd women resorted there.

Conviction is affirmed, and the circuit court directed to proceed to judgment upon the verdict.

The other Justices concurred.

Act No. 34, Laws of 1887.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1890: 11898: 11911: 11920: 11938: 11981: 118902026peak 1890 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. City of Detroit v. Recorder's Court Judge304 N.W.2d 829 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981)
  2. State v. Gill129 N.W. 821 (Iowa 1911)
  3. Ramey v. State45 S.W. 489 (Tex. Crim. App. 1898)
  4. State v. Hesselmeyer123 S.W.2d 90 (Mo. 1938)
  5. Feek v. Township Board of Bloomingdale10 L.R.A. 69 (Mich. 1890)
  6. State v. Pyles104 S.E. 100 (W. Va. 1920)

Most recent

  1. City of Detroit v. Recorder's Court Judge304 N.W.2d 829 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981)
  2. State v. Hesselmeyer123 S.W.2d 90 (Mo. 1938)
  3. State v. Pyles104 S.E. 100 (W. Va. 1920)
  4. State v. Gill129 N.W. 821 (Iowa 1911)
  5. Ramey v. State45 S.W. 489 (Tex. Crim. App. 1898)
  6. Feek v. Township Board of Bloomingdale10 L.R.A. 69 (Mich. 1890)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
People v. Hanrahan, 4 L.R.A. 751 (Mich. 1889) 74

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list