Commonwealth v. Hay

Citations

• 80 Pa. Super. 503
• 1923 Pa. Super. LEXIS 195

Syllabus

<p>Criminal law — Keeping bawdyhouse — Evidence—Sufficiency.</p> <p>In tbe trial of an indictment for keeping a bawdyhouse, evidence that the reputation of the place was that of a house where men and women congregated for immoral purposes, and that the reputation for chastity of those who frequented it was bad, together with other evidence of specific acts of misbehavior, was sufficient to sustain a conviction.</p> <p>While a single act of fornication committed in the house with the consent of the proprietor does not fix the character of the house as that of a bawdyhouse, such an act and all of the circumstances under which it was committed, coupled with the manner of conducting the place and the reputation of it and its frequenters, are competent evidence for the consideration of the jury and may be sufficient to establish guilt.</p> <p>Trials — Evidence—Objections.</p> <p>If, in the trial of a case, a question is asked, which counsel deems improper, the correct practice is to object to the question when propounded. When the question is not objected to and the answer is not responsive to the question, or is incompetent, the proper practice is to move to strike it out, and if the court refuses to do so, take an exception. If that course is not pursued, the right to objection and exception must be regarded as waived.</p>