Pinkney v. District of Columbia
168 A.2d 198
D.C.
1961
Check Treatment
PER CURIAM.

Appellant’s chief contention is that the evidence at trial was insufficient to support her conviction of being a vagrant in violation of those parts of D.C.Code, 1951 (Supp. VIII), § 22-3302, which define a vagrant as:

“(3) Any person leading an immoral or profligate life who has no lawful employment and who has ho lawful means of support realized from a lawful occupation or source. *****
“(8) Any person who wanders about the streets at late or unusual hours of the night without any visible or lawful business and not giving a good account of himself.”

Our review of the record convinces us that the evidence supported a finding of guilty.

Affirmed.