Hunter v. State

Appellant was convicted of keeping a house of ill-fame. Prom the evidence it appears that his wife, who was indicted with him and pleaded guilty, owned the house and conducted the business; he had no further connection with it than that he lived with her in the house as her husband, was fed and clothed, furnished with a horse and buggy and spending money from the proceeds of the business.

Counsel argue that under our statutes, enlarging the rights of a married woman, the husband who only lives off the proceeds of her shame cannot be held responsible therefor. While it is true that under’ our…