People v. Conness
California Supreme Court
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County, and from an order denying a new trial. H. Z. Austin, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtShaw, J.
The information in this case charges that the defendant did “willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously connive at, consent to and permit the placing and leaving of one Mary L. Conness, who was then and there the wife of him, the said Thornton D. Conness, in a house of prostitution, Imown as the ‘Diamond Palace,’ situate at the corner of Tulare and E sts., in the City of Fresno, and did then and there willfully and unlawfully and feloniously allow .and permit his said wife to remain in said house of prostitution; contrary,” etc. The defendant was tried and convicted on this charge and was…
2Cited by18 opinions
- Bradford v. SargentCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1933
- Hornick v. Union Pacific RailroadSupreme Court of Kansas · 1911
- People v. ForbathCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1935
- People v. ShermanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1950
- Reliable Enterprises, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1984
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.