Fields v. District of Columbia

HOOD, Associate Judge.

Appellant was convicted of being a vagrant, the information charging that she was “a person who keeps, and operates, and frequents, and lives in and is employed in a house and other establishment of ill fame.”1

Appellant’s main argument appears to question the sufficiency of the evidence establishing the house in question as one of ill fame. She argues that evidence of bad character of the inmates or of the reputation of the house is not sufficient, citing such cases as Botts v. United States, 9 Cir., 155 F. 50. This argument, however, misconceives the nature of the…