The Federal Reporter with Key-Number Annotations, Volume 251: Cases Argued and Determined in the Circuit Courts of Appeals and District Courts of the United States, October, 1918. Page: 41
xiii, 992 p. ; 23 cm.View a full description of this legislative document.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
BEYER V. UNITED STATE
debauchery was contemplated by the accused in transporting the girls
to Mexicali. But we think there is enough in the charge and in the
proofs to show that the purpose of the accused was within the prohibi-
tion of the statute. They intended to and did place the girls in a house
of prostitution. They subjected them to all the evil influences of such
surroundings. They required them to dance on the same floor with
prostitutes. There was evidence that they were instructed, in case
they were solicited to engage in sexual intercourse, to refuse, and to
say in substance that there were others there for that purpose, and
thus to advertise the prostitutes. They were to be in the dance hall for
the purpose of luring men to dance with them, and to induce men to
purchase intoxicating liquors, and thereby to aid in maintaining the busi-
ness of prostitution in which the plaintiff in error was engaged. They
placed the girls in an environment in which they were likely to be
solicited to engage in prostitution, and their contracts with the girls in-
dicate that they expected that such solicitations would be made. In
Simpson v. United States, 245 Fed. 278, 157 C. C. A. 470 (certiorari
denied 245 U. S. 667, 38 Sup. Ct. 133, 62 L. Ed. -), we held that one
who induced a woman to travel from California to Mexico to manage
a house of prostitution was punishable under the White Slave Act
(Act June 25, 1910, c. 395, 36 Stat. 825 [Comp. St. 1916, 8812-
8819]). There is no difference in principle between that case and this.
While the girls who were transported to Mexicali were not engaged in
managing the house of prostitution, they were engaged in luring men
to it, and probably were as essential to its success as a manager would
have been.
[2] Error is assigned to the denial of the motion of plaintiff in error
in arrest of judgment. To this it is sufficient to say that the ruling of
the trial court on that motion is not assignable as error. Street Railroad
Company v. Hart, 114 U. S. 654, 5 Sup. Ct. 1127, 29 L. Ed. 226; An-
drews v. United States, 224 Fed. 418, 139 C. C. A. 646.
[3] It is said that the court below erred in giving certain instructions
to the jury. No such error was brought to the attention of the court
below. At the close of a comprehensive charge on all the features of
the case, counsel for the plaintiff in error noted "exceptions to each
and every instruction offered on behalf of the government." We have
no means of knowing what instructions were offered on behalf of the
government, and, even if the exceptions are to be deemed to have been
taken to the instructions actually given, they are wholly insufficient.
"A general exception to a charge, which does not direct the attention
of the court to the particular portions of it to which objection is made,
raises no question for review." Holder v. United States, 150 U. S. 91,
14 Sup. Ct. 10, 37 L. Ed. 1010; Masonic Ben. Ass'n v. Lyman, 60 Fed.
498, 9 C. C. A. 104; Baggs v. Martin, 108 Fed. 33, 47 C. C. A. 175.
[4] Error is assigned to the remarks of the court in instructing the
jury, in which it was said that, if the defendants contracted with the
women that the latter should not engage in prostitution, or advised
them what to do in the event that they were solicited by men, that would
be very strong evidence that the defendants knew that the surroundings
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This document can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Legislative Document.
The Federal Reporter with Key-Number Annotations, Volume 251: Cases Argued and Determined in the Circuit Courts of Appeals and District Courts of the United States, October, 1918., legislative document, 1918; Saint Paul, Minnesota. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc38822/m1/54/: accessed April 16, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.