People v. Mead
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtShaw, J.
The defendant was convicted of the crime of conniving at, consenting to, and permitting his wife to be placed in a house of prostitution, as defined by the act of 1891 (Stats. 1891, p. 285), and appeals from the judgment of conviction and from the order denying his motion for a new trial.
1. The first error that is assigned is the denial of his motion in arrest of judgment made upon the ground that the information is defective. The provisions of the act defining th,e crime, so far as applicable, are as follows: “Any man who connives at, consents to, or permits the placing or leaving of his…
2Cited by22 opinions
- People v. MillerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935
- People v. MegladderyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1940
- People v. CortezCalifornia Supreme Court · 2016
- People v. BenenatoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1946
- People v. KrompholdCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.