Lord the King there inhabiting, being, residing and passing, and against the peace," etc. (1 Burn, Justice, 30th ed., 1399; Arch. Cr. Pl. 23rd ed., 1196). The offence is a continuing offence (Ex parte Burnby, [1901] 2 K. B. 458).

The offence is within the Vexatious Indictments Act, 1859, 22 & 23 Vict. c. 17, and the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1867, 30 & 31 Vict. c. 35, s. 1, and is triable at county or borough Quarter Sessions (R. v. Charles, 1861, L. J. M. C. 69).

The indictment, unless adjourned, must be tried at the sessions or assizes for which the committal is made (25 Geo. II. c. 36, s. 10; 14 & 15 Vict. c. 100, s. 27), and the indictment is not removable by certiorari, except at the instance of the prosecution (R. v. Davies, 1794, 5 T. R. 626; 2 R. R. 683).

There is no power to order the payment of costs on a prosecution on indictment, either from public funds or by the defendant; nor by the prosecutor, unless the prosecution has been under the Vexatious Indictments Act, and has failed. But it is not unusual for the Treasury, on petition by the prosecutor (if a public body or officer), to allow part, usually half, of any fine imposed and levied to be applied in payment of the costs of prosecution.

Local description of the parish in which the house in respect of which the offence is alleged is said to be still essential, and is in practice inserted, possibly to justify the parish officials, who usually prosecute, in charging the costs of prosecution on the rates (see 2 (a) below).

It is lawful to include counts for keeping several houses in the same indictment, or to add counts for keeping a disorderly house other than a bawdy-house (see 1 Burn, Justice, 30th ed., 1395).

It is not necessary to prove ownership to sustain a charge of keeping a brothel, and husband and wife may be jointly indicted for the offence (R. v. Williams, 1712, 1 Salk. 384; cp. R. v. Dixon, 1714, 10 Mod. 335). But the difficulties experienced in proving who was the real owner or keeper of a bawdy-house led, in 1751, to an enactment (25 Geo. II. c. 36, s. 8) declaring that a person, though not the real owner or keeper, could be prosecuted and punished as such if he at any time appeared, acted, or behaved as master, or as the person having the care, government, or management of the house. Under this provision it is common to prosecute the persons in charge of such houses.

Though the form of the indictment is, except as to place, general, the prosecution must condescend to particularity in evidence (Clarke v. Periam, 1742, 2 Atk. 337, at p. 339; l'Anson v. Stuart, 1787, 1 T. R. 748, 752, 754).

It is not necessary to prove who frequents the house, and is sufficient to show that unknown persons were there behaving as charged, i.e. meeting for illicit sexual intercourse (l'Anson v. Stuart, 1787, 1 T. R. 748, at p. 754), nor need the indecency or disorder or misconduct be patent from the outside (R. v. Rice, 1866, L. R. 1 C. C. R. 21), and it is even said that evidence of its reputation as a house of ill-fame is admissible. See authorities cited in R. v. M'Namara, 1891, 20 Ontario Rep. 489.

(b) There is some old authority (1) for the liability to indictment of persons frequenting a bawdy-house with knowledge that it is such (Wood's Inst. bk. 3, c. 3); (2) that a man may, without conviction, be bound to good behaviour for haunting bawdy-houses with women of illfame, or for keeping whores in his own house (Dalton, Country Justice, c. 124). Cp. the power of fining and binding over persons found in

VOL. II.

28

"

common gaming-houses; as to which, see GAMING-HOUSE. But there is no recent precedent of resort to these remedies. And a woman is not indictable at common law as a common bawd (R. v. Pierson, 1706, 1 Salk. 382; 2 Raym. (Ld.) 1197), though there was a provision for such indictments in a Commonwealth Ordinance of 1650 (c. 10).

(c) Contracts to let a house for use as a brothel are illegal and void, as are contracts to supply goods, etc., for the purpose of the business, if made with knowledge of the use to which they are to be put (Smith v. White, 1866, L. R. 1 Eq. 626; and see Pearce v. Brooks, 1866, L. R. 1 Ex. 213; Taylor v. Chester, 1869, L. R. 4 Q. B. 309).

2. Under Statute.-(a) At common law any person, whether resident in or a ratepayer of a parish or not, may prosecute any brothel therein, irrespective of any personal annoyance or injury by the nuisance which it causes. But under the Disorderly Houses Act, 1751 (25 Geo. II. c. 36), alternative statutory provision was made for facilitating the prosecution of all disorderly houses (not brothels only), and for throwing the burden of the prosecution on the poor-rate. The Act was passed for three years only, but was made perpetual by 28 Geo. II. c. 19, s. 1. Under sec. 5 any two inhabitants of a parish, paying scot and bearing lot therein, may give notice in writing to a constable, or other peace-officer if there is no constable, of the parish, of any person who there keeps a bawdy-house. The officer, on receipt of the notice, must go with the two inhabitants before a justice of the peace, and, on their swearing before him to the truth of the contents of the notice, and entering into a recognisance in the penal sum of £20 to produce material evidence against the person accused, the officer must enter into a recognisance in the sum of £30 to prosecute with effect the person accused for the offence at the next assizes or Quarter Sessions. When this is done, the justice, without any information being laid (R. v. Newton, [1892] 1 Q. B. 648), must grant a warrant for the arrest of the accused; and, on arrest, must bind him over to appear at the next session or assizes to answer any indictment found against him for the offence; and may take security for his good behaviour in the meantime, until the bill sent up to the grand jury is ignored or is found, and he is tried thereon (s. 6).

If the constable neglects or refuses to act upon the notice, or to prosecute effectually, or is wilfully negligent in the prosecution, he forfeits to each inhabitant the sum of £20, recoverable by action (of debt) if brought within six months (ss. 7, 14).

If he complies with the notice, he is entitled to recover his reasonable costs of the prosecution, after allowance by two justices for the overseers of the parish. And on conviction of the offender, i.e. on a plea or verdict of guilty (Jephson v. Barker, 1886, 3 T. L. R. 40) being returned, the inhabitants are entitled to receive £10 each from the overseers. If the overseers neglect or refuse to pay the costs or blood-money on demand, double the amount due is recoverable by action (of debt), if sued for within six months (ss. 5, 14). The procedure in such actions, as to venue costs, etc., seems to be affected by the Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893, 56 & 57 Vict. c. 61.

Legislative changes as to local government and police have caused some uncertainty as to the present effect of this statute; but in practice, "scot and lot" men are treated as equivalent to inhabitant ratepayers, and the constable to a member of the police force of the district, or the parish constable, if any, appointed under the 35 & 36 Vict. c. 92, s. 7, the decision in Garland v. Ahrbeck, 1888, 5 T. L. R. 91, being ignored as

erroneous. The position of the overseers does not appear to be affected for this purpose by the Local Government Act, 1894, 56 & 57 Vict. c. 73. By an Act of 1818, 58 Geo. III. c. 70, s. 7, the inhabitants are required to serve a copy of the notice with the overseers, and they are to receive reasonable notice to attend before the justice to whom the constable goes, and may, if they like, enter into the recognisance instead of the constable. If they do not, he must proceed under the earlier Act. In London the Metropolitan Borough Councils are now (under 62 & 63 Vict. c. 14, s. 11) the overseers of all parishes within their borough, and notices which under the Acts of 1751 and 1818 should be given to the overseers are now served on the town clerk, who also signs the notices, etc., required to be signed by overseers.

(b) Under sec. 11 of the Prevention of Crimes Act, 1871, 34 & 35 Vict. c. 112, every person who occupies or keeps a brothel and (1) knowingly lodges or knowingly harbours thieves or reputed thieves, or (2) knowingly permits or knowingly suffers them to meet or assemble therein, or (3) knowingly allows the deposit of goods therein, having reasonable cause for believing them to be stolen, is liable to be proceeded against under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts, and, on conviction, to a penalty not exceeding £10; and in default of payment, to imprisonment for not over four months, with or without hard labour; and may also be required to enter into recognisances, with or without sureties. The special provisions of the Act as to search for stolen goods, and evidence in cases of receipt of stolen goods (ss. 16, 19), seem to apply to these offences. The limit of imprisonment being over three months, the accused can elect to be tried on indictment (42 & 43 Vict. c. 49, s. 17).

(c) Under sec. 15 of the Licensing Act, 1872, 35 & 36 Vict. c. 94, a licensed person, even where the licence is occasional only (37 & 38 Vict. c. 49, s. 20), who permits his premises to be used as a brothel, is liable, apparently, on summary conviction, to a penalty not exceeding £20, and on conviction, at once forfeits his licence (R. v. West Riding Justices, 1888, 21 Q. B. D. 258), and is disqualified for ever from holding any licence for the sale of intoxicating liquors. The offence is distinct from that (under sec. 14) of harbouring prostitutes; as to which see PROSTITUTION. This provision is alternative to proceedings by indictment (35 & 36 Vict. c. 94, s. 59; 52 & 53 Vict. c. 63, s. 33). The forfeiture of the licence seems to follow whether the conviction is summary or on indictment.

It was held in R. v. Holland Justices, 1882, 46 J. P. 312, that allowing premises to be used once for prostitution was evidence to support a summary conviction under the enactment; but the value of the decision appears to be qualified by Singleton v. Ellison, [1895] 1 Q. B. 607. And the evidence needed to prove the offence seems to be just the same as is required on an indictment for keeping a common bawdy-house (see supra, 1, 2 (a); and Webb v. Catchlove, 1886, 50 J. P. 795), with the addition of proof that the defendant is a licensed person, and evidence of acts or omissions showing permission or connivance. The word "knowingly" does not occur in the enactment; as to which, see Commissioner of Police v. Cartman, [1896] 1 Q. B. 655.

(d) Under sec. 13 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885, further summary remedies were provided against persons concerned in keeping brothels and like establishments. The scope of the enactment has been much misunderstood. It deals with several distinct offences:

(1) keeping or managing, or acting or assisting in the management of, a brothel (s. 13 (1)); (2) being the tenant, lessee, or occupier of any premises, and knowingly permitting the whole or any part of them to be used as a brothel, or for the purposes of habitual prostitution (s. 13 (2)); (3) being the lessor or landlord of any premises, or the agent of the lessor or landlord, and (a) letting the whole or any part of them with the knowledge that the whole or some part are or is to be used as a brothel, or (6) being wilfully a party to the continued use of such premises, or any part thereof, as a brothel (s. 13 (3)).

The first offence is substantially the same as the common-law offence as expanded by 25 Geo. II. c. 36, s. 8 (see 1 (a) above). The second, so far as it differs in substance from the first, is new. The term brothel does not apply where a prostitute is accustomed to receive male visitors in her rooms for the purpose of plying her calling (Singleton v. Ellison, [1895] 1 Q. B. 607), but the words at the end of the clause are wide enough to make her landlady liable if she allows such use of her premises. The third offence is new, and the enactment seems to have been meant to override R. v. Barrett, 1862, 32 L. J. M. C. 36, and R. v. Stannard, 1863, 33 L. J. M. C. 61. It has not yet been decided whether failure to determine a weekly tenancy, after notice of the illegal use of the premises, is evidence to support conviction of a landlord or his agent. As to the nature of such tenancies, see Bowen v. Anderson, [1894] 1 Q. B. 164.

The offences as thus defined are punishable on summary conviction for a first offence by a penalty not exceeding £20, or not over three months' imprisonment with or without hard labour; and for a second or subsequent offence by a penalty not exceeding £40, or not over four months' hard labour. These offences appear to be continuing offences (Ex parte Burnby, 1901, 2 K. B. 458). The husband or wife of the accused may, without the latter's consent, be called for the prosecution or the defence (61 & 62 Vict. c. 38, s. 4, sched.). If convicted more than twice, the offender may be required to enter into a recognisance, with or without sureties, for not over twelve months, or imprisonment for not over three months in default. If the fine imposed is not paid, hard labour may be imposed in default (R. v. Tynemouth Justices, 1886, 16 Q. B. D. 647). The accused, if charged with an offence after a previous conviction, may elect to be tried on indictment (42 & 43 Vict. c. 49, s. 17), and must be informed of this right. But if the Court is content to deal with the later offence as a first offence, no right to elect arises (R. v. Fowler, 1895, 64 L. J. Rep. M. C. 9). When the accused elects to be tried on indictment, the costs of the prosecution are payable out of the local rate (42 & 43 Vict. c. 43, s. 17). On election to be tried on indictment the prosecution would seem to be entitled to include an indictment for the common-law offence of keeping a bawdy-house, as well as counts formed on sec. 13 (see R. v. Brown, 1895, 1 Q. B. 119), and the election of the accused to be tried on indictment need not be pleaded (R. v. Chambers). The previous conviction must be charged in the indictment, but is not stated or proved before the jury until after they have found a verdict for the subsequent offence (Ř. v. Huberty, 1905, 70 J. P. 6).

If summarily convicted otherwise than on his own confession, he can appeal to Quarter Sessions (48 & 49 Vict. c. 69, s. 13). The procedure on appeal is regulated by sec. 31 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, 42 & 43 Vict. c. 49, and by the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1884. If tried summarily he can, besides fine or imprisonment, be ordered to pay the

costs of the prosecution (11 & 12 Vict. c. 43, s. 18). Summary prosecutions may be instituted either by information in the usual manner under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts (Kirwin v. Hines, 1886, 54 L. T. 610), or in the manner authorised by 25 Geo. II. c. 36, and 58 Geo. III. c. 70, s. 7 (see 2 (a) above), in which event no information is necessary, and a warrant for the arrest of the accused for any of the three offences must be granted after the ratepayers have entered into the prescribed recognisance (R. v. Newton, [1892] 1 Q. B. 648).

The prosecution appear to be quite free, if they choose, to elect to proceed by indictment instead of summarily, where the facts go to prove the common-law offence or the summary penalties are insufficient for the case.

The fines imposed and levied in the Metropolis before a police magistrate go to the Receiver of Metropolitan Police (10 Geo. IV. c. 44, s. 37; 2 & 3 Vict. c. 47, s. 77); in Quarter Sessions boroughs to the Borough Fund (45 & 46 Vict. c. 50, s. 221).

3. At common law it seems to be an indictable misdemeanor to conspire to procure the defilement of a woman (R. v. Lord Grey, 1682, 9 St. Tri. 127; R. v. Mears, 1851, 2 Den. C. C. 79). In 1885 stringent statutory provisions on this subject were enacted: (i.) Under sec. 2 (1) (3) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885, every person is guilty of a misdemeanor who procures, or attempts to procure, any woman or girl (a) to leave the United Kingdom with intent that she may become an inmate of a brothel elsewhere (i.e. outside the United Kingdom); (b) to leave her usual place of abode in the United Kingdom (such place not being a brothel), with intent that she may, for the purposes of prostitution, become an inmate of a brothel within or without the King's dominions. A conviction of these offences cannot be obtained on the evidence of one witness unless he is corroborated in some material particular by evidence implicating the accused. See CORROBORATION.

(ii.) Under sec. 6, the owner or occupier, or any person who has or assists in the control or management of any premises, is guilty of an indictable offence if he induces or knowingly suffers any girl under sixteen to resort to or be on the premises for the purpose of being unlawfully and carnally known by any man, whether such carnal knowledge is intended to be with any particular man or generally, i.c. whether the case is one of procuration for an individual or for indiscriminate prostitution. Such premises need not be a brothel. A mother has been convicted under the section for suffering in her own home her own daughter to be carnally known (R. v. Webster, 1885, 16 Q. B. D. 134). But the section has been held not to apply where a mother allowed an offence to be committed in her house with a view to getting evidence against a man, who had already committed an offence against sec. 5 with her daughter-a girl between thirteen and sixteen (R. v. Merthyr Tydvil Justices, 1894, 10 R. 245). A girl under sixteen can apparently not be convicted of aiding or abetting or inciting to the offence with herself (see R. v. Tyrrell, [1894] 1 Q. B. 710).

If the girl is under thirteen, the offence is felony, and punishable by penal servitude for life or not less than three years (48 & 49 Vict. c. 69, s. 6 (1); 54 & 55 Vict. c. 69, s. 1), or imprisonment with or without hard labour for not over two years; but if she is between thirteen and sixteen, it is misdemeanor only, and subject to the latter punishment.

Reasonable belief that the girl was sixteen or over is an answer to the charge (s. 6).