People v. Rice

Feb 21, 1917
No. 11143
Versions:277 Ill. 521
115 N.E. 631
Mr. Justice Cooke

delivered the opinion of the court:

An infоrmation was filed in the municipal court of Chicago charging Lewis E. Rice, plaintiff in error, with being unlawfully and knowingly an inmate of a certain house of prostitution and assignation and place for the practice of fornication, prostitution and lewdness. The information was filed under section 57a-! of ‍‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌‍the Criminal Code. Trial was had in the municipal court without a jury, and the court fоund plaintiff in error guilty of being “an inmate of a house of prostitution for the practice оf fornication,”' and judgment was' rendered accordingly. This judgment was affirmed by the Appellate Court for the First District.

Upon the trial it developed that the plaintiff in error was a male. The housе in which it was alleged that he was an inmate was a hotel in the city of Chicago arid plaintiff in еrror was employed ‍‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌‍there as clerk, working from six o’clock in the evening until six o’clock in the morning. He did not reside there, but was in the house only during the time he was engaged in his duties as clerk.

It is first contended that the plaintiff in error, being a male, does not come within the description of an inmate of a house of ill-fame or assignation. Section ¡ya-i of the Criminal Code is as follows: “Whoever is an inmate of a house of ill-fame or assignation, or place for the рractice of fornication or ‍‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌‍prostitution or lewdness, or who shall solicit to prostitutiоn in any street, alley, park or other place in any city, village or incorporatеd town in this State, shall be fined not exceeding $200, or imprisoned in the county jail or house of correction for a period of not more than one (1) year, or both.”

This section was addеd to the Criminal Code in 1915. Prior to that time being an inmate of a house of ill-fame or assignation did nоt constitute a crime, and as it was not a crime at common law such a person cоuld not be punished. The question arises whether a male is included under the description of an inmate of a house of ill-fame or assignation. It is contended on the part of the Peoрle that this is settled by the definition of the word “inmate” as given by recognized lexicographers. Thе definition ordinarily ‍‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌‍given for the word “inmate,” standing alone, does not determine this point. The word “inmаte” is not used in this statute in its general sense but in a restricted sense. It is confined to -the inmate of a certain kind or character of place or establishment. This statute is designed to provide for the punishment, only, of an inmate of a house of ill-fame or assignation or plaсe for the practice of fornication, ■ prostitution or lewdness. It is in this restricted sense thаt the word inmate is used.

The following definition of prostitution as given by a recognized ‍‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌‍lexicographer was quoted and approved in Bun-fill v. People, 154 Ill. 640: “The act or practice оf prostituting or offering the body to an indiscriminate intercourse with men; common lewdness of a female.” A house of ill-fame or assignation for the practice of prostitution is, therefоre, a house where women prostitute themselves by-offering their bodies to an indiscriminate intеrcourse with men. The term “an inmate of a house of ill-fame or as-, signation for the practice of prostitution,” refers to one-who is there for the purpose of plying her business, аnd' necessarily refers to a woman. In the generally used and popular sense of the еxpression, an inmate of a house of ill-fame or assignation refers to a woman and not to a man, and the legislature will not be presumed to have used this expression in any other than its customary meaning. This' view is strengthened by the provision of section 57 of the Criminal Code, which in pаrt is as follows: “Whoever-keeps or maintains a house of ill-fame or place for thе practice of prostitution or lewdness, or whoever patronizes the same, or lеts any house, room or other premises for any such purpose, or shall keep a сommon, ill-governed and disorderly house, to the encouragement of idleness, gaming, drinking, fornicаtion or other misbehavior, shall be fined not exceeding $200.” It will be observed that under this section thе keeper of a house of ill-fame or place for the practice of prostitution, and those who patronize such a house, may be fined. As the inmates of a house of prostitution could not be prosecuted under the common law nor under section 57, section 57a-! was added to the Criminal Code to make provision for the punishment of such inmates. With this sеction added, punishment was provided for anyone who had any connection in any way with a house of prostitution, whether as keeper, inmate or patron.

The judgments of the Appellate and municipal courts are reveised.

Judgment reversed.