City of St. Paul v. Mahmood

Defendants were tried together and found guilty; the defendant Mahmood for keeping, and the other defendants for visiting, a disorderly house in the city of St. Paul.

The sole question raised by defendants is the supposed insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction. It is contended that under State v. Reckards, 21 Minn. 47, and State v. Nanick, 144 Minn. 413, 175 N. W. 693, it was necessary to prove more than a single instance of acts denounced by the ordinance. The cases cited do hold that evidence of a single transgression of the ordinance does not establish the house wherein it…