State v. Bentz
Supreme Court of Missouri
ERROR to St. Louis Criminal Court. No pretence of objection can be had to the mere form of this indictment. 2 Ch. Cr. Law, 39. Two persons may be jointly indicted for a misdemeanor, and the wife may be indicted as well as the husband for this offence. 2 Ch. Cr. Law, 39, and notes; 9 Mo. R., State vs. Harrison and others. That where several keep a common bawdy house, they may be jointly or severally indicted.— 1 Chitty’s Cr. Law, 268; Thatcher’s Cr.
Read the full summary
ERROR to St. Louis Criminal Court. No pretence of objection can be had to the mere form of this indictment. 2 Ch. Cr. Law, 39. Two persons may be jointly indicted for a misdemeanor, and the wife may be indicted as well as the husband for this offence. 2 Ch. Cr. Law, 39, and notes; 9 Mo. R., State vs. Harrison and others. That where several keep a common bawdy house, they may be jointly or severally indicted.— 1 Chitty’s Cr. Law, 268; Thatcher’s Cr. Cases, 19; Rev. Stat.,p. 869, sec. 14; Arch. Cr. PL, 54.
1Opinion of the CourtNapton, J.
This was an indictment against John Bentz and Catharine Bentz for keeping a bawdy house. The indictment was quashed, on motion of the defendants, because they were jointly indicted. It was held, -in Queen vs. Williams, (1 Salk., 384) that a wife, as well as her husband, could be indicted for keeping a bawdy house — because the wife, as well as the husband, might have a share in the management or government of a disorderly house. They may he indicted jointly. 2 Ch. Cr. L., 39; State vs. Harrison, et al., 9 Mo. R. Judgment reversed.
2Cited by4 opinions
- State v. McAninchSupreme Court of Iowa · 1915
- Goldstein v. . People of the State of N.Y.New York Court of Appeals · 1880
- State v. GillSupreme Court of Iowa · 1911
- State v. KeithleyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1910