Action to abate a nuisance under the provisions of the Red-light Abatement Act, [Stats. 1913, p. 20], The court rendered judgment in favor of plaintiff, ordered *259 the building closed for the period of one year, and directed the personal property located therein to be sold and applied as provided in the act.
Separate appeals were taken by Louie White, the proprietor of the place and owner of the furniture, and by Bay-side Land Company, the owner of the real property and building. For convenience, these appeals will be considered together.
It is claimed that there is “an utter absence of any allegation that any acts of lewdness, prostitution, and assignation occurred on the premises. ’ ’ It was held in People v. Arcega, 28 Cal. App. Dec. 1188, that the allegation that the building was used for the purpose of prostitution was sufficient. Here we have an additional averment that certain named lewd and dissolute persons occupied the premises and then and there solicited acts of sexual intercourse. We think these allegations sufficiently clear and explicit to inform the defendants of the character of the charge against the property, and to tender an issue.
Counsel indulge in considerable vituperative criticism of the action of the district attorney in employing “stool-pigeons” to obtain evidence in regard to the conduct of the cafe, and cite cases in which the use of such methods has been condemned by the courts. Suffice it to say that in no instance was any of the “soiled doves” decoyed by the “stool-pigeons” into committing any of the many acts of lewdness testified to by the latter on the witness-stand. The investigators related what they saw with reference to the *260 actions of other guests, and only once did any of them participate in the dissolute practices which were indulged in by the guests of the place, and then only by acquiescence in the proposal of one of the alleged occupants of the building.
The finding on this issue is as follows: “That at all times mentioned in the plaintiff’s complaint, the defendant Louis White, whose true name is Louie White, has used the premises and the building thereon located, commonly known as the T'ower Cafe, and the furniture, fixtures and musical instruments therein and in his possession and under his control, for the purpose' of lewdness, and in conducting a place where lewdness, assignation and prostitution were and are encouraged; that the evidence shows, and the court finds, that no acts of prostitution or assignation were actually committed on said premises; that the building located on the premises hereinbefore described, commonly known as the Tower Cafe, and said premises occupied by him as aforesaid, and the said furniture, fixtures, musical instruments therein were, and now are, by reason of such use, a public nuisance under the statutes of the State of California, known as the Red-light Abatement Act. ’ ’ While the court finds that no acts of prostitution or assignation were actually committed on the premises, it does find that the premises were used for the purpose of lewdness, which was permitted and encouraged thereon.
This finding is challenged as being inconsistent and unjustified. It is insisted that the words “lewdness,” “assignation,” and “prostitution” are synonymous. With this we cannot agree. Lewdness is of much broader significance than the two other words, and includes their meaning as well as all other immoral or degenerate conduct or conversation between persons of opposite sexes, such as were practiced by the frequenters of the cafe, as related by the witnesses. The lewdness and licentiousness disclosed by the record here as having occurred on the premises is not only disgusting and revolting in itself, but leads inevitably to illicit intercourse, and, undoubtedly, was in the contemplation of the legislature *261 when it adopted the statute, and-, was intended to be included Within the terms of the act.
*262 The act provides that “evidence of the general reputation of the place shall he admissible for the purpose of proving the existence of said nuisance. ’ ’ One witness testified, on cross-examination, to conversations regarding the reputation of the Tower Cafe had with persons residing in Santa Ana, Anaheim, Long Beach, and in the southwest part of Orange County. These places are all within a radius of twenty miles from Seal Beach, and consequently may be said to be in the vicinity of the premises in question. Many of the visitors to this resort came from the places mentioned and would be in a position, from their experiences, to form an opinion as to its character; and from their statements, based on observation, would result the foundation for the reputation of the premises. There were other witnesses who testified to the bad reputation of the place in the city of Seal Beach, where the cafe is situated, which would justify the court in finding that its general reputation was unsavory. As above mentioned, the statements regarding conversations with persons in the other cities mentioned were elicited on cross-examination, and at most would go only to the weight of the testimony of the witness, and not to its admissibility.
Appellants attack the finding that the nuisance was not abated' on the 1st of December, 1918, as not justified by the evidence. There is nothing in the record to show that it was managed in any different manner after that date, and the proprietor testified that at the time of the trial it was still being conducted in the same way as before. This was ample justification for the finding.
We have considered all the points urged by appellants, and find no error in the record.
Judgment affirmed.
Finlayson, P. J., and Thomas, J., concurred.
A petition for a rehearing of this cause was denied by the district court of appeal on July 21, 1920, and a petition to have the cause heard in the supreme court, after judgment in the district court of appeal, was denied by the supreme court on August 19, 1920:
Shaw, J., Lawlor, J., Wilbur, J., Lennon, J., and Olney, J., concurred.