People v. Elliott
California Supreme Court
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Sacramento County and from an order denying a new trial. A. C. Hinkson, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
THE COURT.
An information filed against the defendant charged that in May, 1896, she did “willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously inveigle and entice into a certain house in Sacramento city, county of Sacramento, state of California, one Daisy McCarty, who then and there was an unmarried female of previous chaste character and under the age of eighteen years, to wit, of the age of twelve years, for the purpose of prostitution and to have illicit carnal connection with men.”
The case was tried and defendant found guilty. She moved for a new trial, which was denied, and thereupon judgment *594was…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- People v. MaddenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- People v. StewartCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- People v. O'BrienCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- People v. DoaneCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
3Cited by9 opinions
- People v. CanfieldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
- People v. AsavisCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1937
- People v. LowellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1946
- People v. LetoileCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1916
- People v. WyettCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1920
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.