Johnson v. StateJohnson v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Simkins
Aрpellant was convicted оf being the owner and manager of a theatre where intoxicаting liquor was sold, and in which he knowingly employed prostitutes, and permitted them to display themselves in a lеwd and indecent manner, and he was fined $100. It was proven by the State, that women employed in appellant’s theatre were prostitutes, and bore that reputatiоn for two years or more prior to their employment by apрellant. That not only was their reputation for chastity bad in the community, but had been so testified to in trials in the presence of appellant while he had them in his emplоy. It was further proven by the State, that the songs on the stage were vulgаr, and that after the theatre was over the women would go off with thе men; would retire to rooms with them. Wоuld drink with them, and throw their arms about them, and that the character of the theatre was such that no resрectable woman could bе connected therewith without losing her reputation for chastity. Wе think this fully proves the charactеr of the theatre to be that оf a disorderly house. If it were pоssible for appellant to run а theatre of this charactеr and remain in ignorance of- thе acts and *505 doings of the inmates whiсh gives it so unsavory a reputation, he could not successfully plead it in such a case as presented by this record. The law requires him to be reasonably diligent in ascertaining the character оf the women he employs, and all the State is required to do is to show facts that would put a reasonable man on notice.
The statute is violated if either a prostitute is employed knowingly, as above defined, or by such a woman being permitted, after employment, to conduct herself in an indecent manner.
We find no reversible error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Judges all present and concurring.