Commonwealth v. Rivers

RONAN, Justice. The defendant was convicted of keeping a house of ill fame in violation of G.L.(Ter.Ed.) c. 272, § 24. The defendant, a widower, fifty-four years of age, had occupied these premises as his home for several years. A woman twenty-nine years of age, who was employed as his housekeeper, also lived there. One Mrs. Roche was living there as a guest of the housekeeper. At about forty-five minutes after one o'clock on the morning of April 25, 1927, two State police officers accompanied by two other persons called at the defendant's home. They were admitted by the housekeeper. One of the men asked her for intoxicating liquor. She referred him to the defendant, who had retired for the night and was in his bedroom which led off the kitchen. This man went into the defendant's room and asked the defendant for liquor. His request was refused. In the meantime Roche, dressed in a kimono, came downstairs. She went with one of the men into the front hall. He was allowed to testify, subject to an exception, that she solicited him to go upstairs for the purpose of having intercourse with her and that she told him what the price would be, a part of which she stated 'was for the house.' The admission of this evidence is the only question raised by the bill of exceptions. It is settled that, in a prosecution for keeping a disorderly house or a house of ill fame, evidence is admissible to show the bad character for chastity of women who lived in or frequented the house and the character of their conversations there as tending to show the character of the house, but that conversations by them outside the house and not in the presence of the defendant are merely hearsay and therefore are not competent evidence. Commonwealth v. Harwood, 4 Gray 41, 64 Am.Dec. 49; Commonwealth v. Kimball, 7 Gray 328; Commonwealth v. Gannett, 1 Allen 7, 79 Am.Dec. 693; Commonwealth v. Davenport, 2 Allen 299; Commonwealth v. Sliney, 126 Mass. 49; Commonwealth v. Clark, 145 Mass. 251, 13 N.E. 888; Commonwealth v. Bagdasarian, 257 Mass. 248, 153 N.E. 452; Commonwealth v. Martin, Mass., 23 N.E.2d 876.