3. Adultery-Open and notorious, is necessary allegation.-Ala. McGuire v. State. 37 Ala. 160. Ark. State v. Dunn, 26 Ark. 34. Ind. State v. Candrell, 14 Ind. 280; State v. Johnson, 69 Ind. 85.

4. No continuance of illicit intercourse makes out crime, so long as it is secret, or attempted to be made so.-Kincaid v. State, 57 Miss. 134.

5. Construction of section-Application. -This section does not apply to seducer, or one who prevails upon female theretofore chaste to have illicit carnal connection with himself, but applies to "person who procures the gratification of passion of lewdness for another."-People v. Roderigas, 49 Cal. 9, 11.

6. Same-Identity of section.-This section is identical with act of March 1, 1872 (Stats. 1871-2, p. 184).

7. Same-Previous chaste character.-To entice female into house of ill-fame or elsewhere for purposes of prostitution is not offense, under this section, nor under provisions of act of March 1, 1872, p. 380, unless such female was of previous chaste character. Character, in this respect, is fact, and one which must be alleged in indictment and established by prosecution, in order to conviction of accused. It need not, however, be proved by evidence given directly upon point, but may be shown prima facie by presumption from other facts and circumstances attending the transaction.People v. Roderigas, 49 Cal. 9, 10.

See par. 16, this note.

from

rape.

S. Distinguished-Seduction -The effect of indecent liberties upon mind of female is to be classed under head of solicitation, and distinguishes crime of seduction from that of rape.-People v. Royal, 53 Cal. 62, 63.

9. Evidence-As to admissibility---As to other acts.-In case where witness was allowed to testify that from sounds and words heard by him from adjoining room in hotel he was of the opinion that act of adultery was committed in such room, held error.Carter v. Carter, 37 Ill. App. 219.

10. The fact that witness saw man and woman in cemetery, in the daytime, hugging and kissing, for an hour, is not alone sufficient to justify conviction of adultery.State v. Wiltsey, 103 Iowa 54, 72 N. W. 415.

11. Evidence of acts in other places.Iowa. State v. Briggs, 68 Iowa 416, 27 N. W. 358. Mass. Commonwealth v. Nichols, 114 Mass. 285, 19 Am. Rep. 346. Tex. Funderberg v. State, 23 Tex. App. 392.

12. Same-Conflicting-Question of fact. -In prosecution under this section, where evidence shows that defendant enticed young unmarried female under age of eighteen years, to wit, of age of twelve years, and of previous chaste character, into house of prostitution kept by defendant, for purpose of having illicit carnal connection with men, and did have such connection, any conflicting evidence as to her

previous chaste character is question of fact for the jury.-People v. Elliott, 119 Cal. 593, 594, 51 Pac. 955.

13. Same Expert testimony of physician, regarding effect of indecent liberties, "If it excited no passion or gave no pleasure, it might affect the intellect or might not. Supposing it excites no passion at all and no pleasurable emotion, it might have the effect to bewilder her." is inadmissible.-People v. Royal, 53 Cal. 62.

14. Same-Sufficiency of.-Indictment for unlawful cohabitation is not maintained by evidence of one act of criminal intercourse between married man and single woman. There must be "living together." Cohabitation is not sojourn, nor habit of visiting, "nor even remaining with for time." A single act or mere occasional acts of incontinence are insufficient to sustain the charge.-Fla. Luster v. State, 23 Fla. 339, 2 So. 690. Mass. Commonwealth v. Calef, 10 Mass. 153. Mo. State v. Chandler, 132 Mo. 155, 53 Am. St. Rep. 483, 33 S. W. 797.

15. Evidence inadmissible.-In prosecution, under this section, for enticement of young unmarried girl twelve years old into house of prostitution, for purposes of prostitution, evidence of other young girls, that defendant had asked each of them to go to her house to have illicit intercourse with men, is inadmissible, and, if admitted, is sufficiently prejudicial to justify reversal of judgment.-People v. Elliott, 119 Cal. 593, 594, 51 Pac. 955.

17. Illicit intercourse-Must be habitual, to constitute crime.-Searls v. People, 13 Ill. 597; Miner v. People, 58 Ill. 59, 60.

18. It is legally possible for living together in adultery to be committed in single day, as if parties come together in cohabitation, contemplating its continuance, yet it is broken off by prosecution, or fear, or other cause.-Hall v. State, 52 Ala. 463; McAlpine v. State, 117 Ala. 93, 23 So. 130.

19. The crime as "an habitual surrender of person of one to the great gratification of the other, as usually takes place in the marriage state."-State v. Jolly, 3 Dev. & B. L. (S. C.) 110, 32 Am. Dec. 656, 660. 20.

V.

Same-Living together is taking up a permanent abode or residence.-Calef Calef, 54 Me. 365, 92 Am. Dec. 549; Ross v. Ross, 103 Mass. 575, 576.

21. Indictment-Allegations in-Necessary allegation that guilty parties are not man and wife is material one, but any form of words stating that woman or man was wife or husband of some person other than accused is sufficient.-Ark. Hopper v. State,

1. As to constitutionality of section.This section is not in conflict with provisions of constitution prohibiting infliction of cruel and unusual punishment.-People v. Conness, 150 Cal. 114, 88 Pac. 821, 823.

2. Construction of words-Proof of connivance.-Under the act of March 31, 1891 (Stats. 1891, p. 288), entitled "An act to prevent the placing or keeping or living of married women in houses of prostitution, and to punish persons therefor," the words "connivance, consent, or permission" of husband are used to characterize substantive act of wife in being, remaining, or living in house of prostitution. The fact of wife being in place of that character is central and essential fact or predicate, just as in murder the death of person charged to have been murdered is essential fact. This being admitted or proved, connivance of defendant is to be proved by such declarations, acts, or omissions as outwardly manifest intention.-People v. Bosquet, 116 Cal. 75, 78, 47 Pac. 879.

mation charged that the defendant did wilfully connive at, consent to, and permit the placing and leaving of his wife in a house of prostitution, an objection that there was a variance in the proof because the evidence showed that he directly placed her therein is untenable where there is proof that he permitted her to remain there.People v. Nitta, 17 Cal. App. 153, 118 Pac. 946.

6. House of prostitution-What constitutes. House composed of number of rooms, commonly called "cribs," each of which is occupied by different woman as place of prostitution for herself alone, is house of prostitution, within meaning of this section.-People v. Mead, 145 Cal. 500, 505, 78 Pac. 1047.

7. Information-Alleging crime in language of statute, without alleging purpose for which wife was placed in house of prostitution, is good.-People V. Conness, 150 Cal. 114, 88 Pac. 821, 824. See People v. Mead, 145 Cal. 500, 503, 78 Pac. 1047.

8. Instruction. It is error to refuse to instruct jury that, though wife resided in house of prostitution, and husband knew it, it was still duty of jury to permit no presumption to be raised against husband, and if no other facts were established, husband should be acquitted, where other instructions implied that husband could be guilty, though he did not wish wife to remain in house, and had nothing to do with her going there.-People v. Conness, 150 Cal. 114, 88 Pac. 821, 824.

9. Purpose of placing wife in house of prostitution.-This section makes it felony for any man to place or procure others to place his wife in house of prostitution for purpose of prostitution, and he is also guilty in allowing her to remain therein for purpose of engaging in innocent occupation, as cook or seamstress.-People v. Conness, 150 Cal. 114, 88 Pac. 821, 822.

2.

Abduction of females-Meaning of statute.-A statute against the abduction of females of "previous chaste character" means, of actual, personal virtue, as distinguished from a good reputation.-Slocum v. People, 90 Ill. 274, 281; Lyons v. State, 52 Ind. 426, 1 Am. Cr. Rep. 28.

3. Construction of section - Averments and proof. The true construction of this section only requires averment and proof of legal custody when the child is taken from some person other than parents or guardians. It need not be alleged that father, mother, or guardian had legal charge of her person.-Ex parte Estrado, 88 Cal. 316, 318, 26 Pac. 209.

As to custody of female, see par. 8, this note.

away was without consent of person who, with permission of parents, if living, was intrusted with care, custody, charge, or control of child, as actual member of family. If she was temporarily at relative's house, and he should consent and parent not, this would not excuse person charged.-State v. Ruhl, 8 Iowa 447, 452.

5.

Same-Purpose of law. The law prescribed by this section was intended to protect family against assaults of those who traffic in women for houses of prostitution, to save members thereof from sorrow and disgrace, and court ought to be careful not to construe statute so as to deprive it of any element of effect in this regard.-People v. Fowler, 88 Cal. 136, 138, 25 Pac. 1110. 6. Same Same - Enticing or taking away female from parents' home for purpose of prostitution is clearly within language of section like above, be that taking or enticing to place distant or near, or be it for long or short space of time. The crime charged is abduction, and it is so styled. The taking or enticing away from a parent's house is gist of the offense, which may well be committed, although detention is only temporary and transaction confined to exceedingly limited territory. Such enticing or taking away is also within intention of statute. The legislature, in passing statute under consideration, had undoubtedly in view punishment of pimps and procurers who entice and carry off young girls and induce them to abandon, for once and all, their homes and control of their parents, for purpose of becoming permanent inmates of houses of ill-fame, or living as concubines; but it also had in view such persons, more especially in large towns and cities, as entice girls from parents' house to den of infamy in the immediate neighborhood, for purpose of prostituting them for pay to whosoever may come, even though absences from paternal roof are of but temporary character. The latter evil is not only as much within terms of statute as former, but is also equally within evils intended to be remedied.-Slocum v. People, 90 Ill. 274, 278.

7. Same- Protection of family. This section was intended not only for protection of females under certain age from wiles and machinations of bad men, but was also intended to protect family from sorrow and disgrace. People v. Cook, 61 Cal. 478, 479.

8. Custody of female - Construction of section. This section does not require, in order to establish the crime, that female should be taken from house or premises of person having legal charge of her person, from actual possession of such guardian, but only that she be taken away from such person for purpose named in the statute.-People v. Lewis, 141 Cal. 543, 546, 75 Pac. 189.

9. Same-Abandonment of home. · In view of McKinstry, J., dissenting, the crinie