would not lie. It is true that the defendant had notice of the purpose for which the premises were used; but was he bound to act on that notice? Is such notice equivalent to knowledge?

WIGHTMAN, J. It is not stated as a fact in this case that the premises were used for this purpose with the knowledge and assent of the landlord.

Ribton. It is not. If the landlord had entered for the purpose of turning the tenant out, he would have been guilty of a trespass.

WILLIAMS, J. The not giving the tenant notice to quit is not equivalent to keeping the house.

Ribton. It is not. There is also the case of Russell v. Briant1 where it was held that a person who lets for hire by the evening a place of dramatic entertainment for the public performance of songs and music and provides the hirer, who performs songs and music which he has not liberty to perform, with light, benches, etc., is not guilty of representing the songs and music or of causing them to represented within the meaning of the 3 and 4 William IV.9

Poland, for the Crown. It is admitted that the landlord is not liable where the nuisance is established after the letting. But it is contended that it is otherwise when he lets the house with a knowledge of the purpose to which it is to be applied and assenting thereto. Suppose a man were to let a house with an express stipulation that it should be used as a brothel, he would be a trespasser after the lease was granted, yet surely he would be a party to the keeping of the house. CHANNELL, B. Do you say that he is within the 25 George II.3 Poland. He is liable, though absent, if he is a party to the conducting of the house. The 25 George II.,4 is intended to assist in the suppression of brothels by enabling the judge to inflict punishments on the actual occupier, although he is not the owner. The owner however is not the less liable if he can be discovered. Rich v. Basterfield,5 is distinguishable. The tenant there might have burnt coke and then there would have been no nuisance at all. Suppose in that case there had been an understanding between the landlord and tenant, that the tenant was to use bad coal and damp straw. Surely in that case the landlord would have been liable. Whether or no the landlord participates in the nuisance is a question for the jury. It was so left in this case; and the jury found the prisoner guilty upon that direction.

Ribton, in reply. Rich v. Basterfield is in point, for here as well as there the tenants had an option whether they would use the premises so as to be a nuisance or not. In that case Cresswell, J., says: 6 "It

1 8 C. B. 836; 19 L. J., C. P. 33.

2 ch. 15, sec. 2.

3 ch. 36.

4 ch. 36, sec. 8.

4 C. B. 738; 16 L. J., C. P. 273.

4 C. B. 804.

appears to us that if a landlord lets premises not in themselves a nuisance, but which may or may not be used by the tenant so as to become a nuisance, and it is entirely at the option of the tenant so to use them or not, and the landlord receives the same benefits whether they are so used or not, the landlord can not be made responsible for the acts of his tenant."

Cur. adv. vult.

There He was only the owner for improper purposes He derived no increase

The judgment of the court was delivered on the 29th of November, 1862, by POLLOCK, C. B. This indictment can not be supported. was no keeping of the house by the defendant. of the house letting it to another who used it with which the defendant had nothing to do. of rents from the traffic there carried on, nor had he anything to do with the immoral part of the transaction, except in knowing that it might or might not be used as a bawdy house. My brother WILLIAMS has well expressed the ground of our decision in saying that the not giving a notice to quit was not equivalent to keeping a bawdy house.

Conviction quashed.

OMISSION - KEEPING BAWDY HOUSE.

R. v. STANNARD.

[9 Cox, 405.]

In the English Court of Criminal Appeal, 1863.

A Landlord was indicted for Keeping and maintaining in the first count, a common bawdy house, and in the second, a disorderly house. It was proved that the house was let out in apartments to young women by distinct takings, as weekly tenants, but the landlord did not occupy any part, nor keep the key, nor reserve to himself any right of entry. The tenants occupied the house as a brothel, so as to cause it to be a scandal to the neighborhood, the only profit the landlord derived was an increased rent. Com. plaints were made to the landlord, and he well knew the uses to which the apartments were applied by his tenants, but he took no steps to remove the lodgers: held, upon these facts, that the landlord did not "keep or maintain "a bawdy house or a dis. orderly house.

Case reserved by COCKBURN, C. J., for the opinion of this court. Samuel Stannard was tried before me at the last assizes for the county of Suffolk upon the following indictment:

SUFFOLK, The jurors for our Lady the Queen, upon their oath TO WIT: S present, that Samuel Stannard, on the first day of January in the year of our Lord, one thousand eight hundred and fiftynine, and divers other days and times between that day and the day of

taking the inquisition, at the parish of St. Mary Key, in the borough of Ipswich, in the county aforesaid, unlawfully did keep and maintain a certain common bawdy house, and in the said house, for the lucre and gain of him, the said Samuel Stannard, certain persons, as well men as women, of evil name and fame, then and there, and on the said other days and times, there unlawfully and willfully did cause and procure to frequent and come together of said men and women and whores in the said house of the said Samuel Stannard, at unlawful times, as well in the night as in the day, then and there and on the said other days and times there to be and remain drinking, tippling, whoring, and otherwise misbehaving themselves, unlawfully and willfully did permit, and yet doth permit, to the great damage and nuisance of all the liege subjects of our said Lady the Queen, then inhabiting, being, residing, and passing, to the evil example of all others in the like case offending, and against the peace of our said Lady the Queen, her crown and dignity. And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do further present that the said Samuel Stannard, to wit: on the said first day of January, in the year aforesaid, and on the said other times and days aforesaid, at the said parish of St. Mary Key, in the borough aforesaid, in the county aforesaid, unlawfully did keep and maintain a certain common, ill-governed, and disorderly house, and in the said last-mentioned house, for the lucre and gain of him, the said Samuel Stannard, certain persons, as well men and women, of evil name and fame, and of dishonest conversation, then and there and in the said other days and times, there unlawfully and willfully did cause and procure to frequent and come together, and the said men and women, in the said house of him, the said Samuel Stannard, at unlawful times, as well in the night as in the day, then and there and on the said other days and times, there to be and remain drinking, tippling, whoring, and otherwise misbehaving themselves, unlawfully and willfully did permit, to the great damage and common nuisance of all the liege subjects of our Lady the Queen, then inhabiting, being, residing, and passing, to the evil example of all others in the like case offending, and against the peace of our said Lady the Queen, her crown and dignity.

The facts proved were as follows:

The house in question was inhabited entirely by women who lived by prostitution openly carried on, and whose conduct was often riotous and grossly indecent, so as to be a scandal and offense to the neighborhood.

The defendant was the owner of the house, but he occupied no part of it, neither did he keep the key, or reserve to himself any right of entry. The apartments throughout the house were let to weekly tenants, who occupied separately under distinct takings, each lodger hav

ing her own room, her own key, and a door opening either into the street, or into a passage connecting with the street.

The defendant had nothing whatever to do with the management of the house (if, indeed, a house thus divided into distinct and separate holdings could be said to be managed as a house), or any part of it.

He received no share of the earnings of the women, nor did he derive any benefit therefrom, except so far as he may be said to have done so indirectly from their ability to pay their rent being thereby increased.

He had no control over the tenants, except such as might arise indirectly from his power as landlord to determine one tenancy from one week to another. He only went to the house to collect the weekly rent from the different lodgers, or when being pressed by the complaints of the neighbors, he went (as sometimes happened) to endeavor to prevail on the inmates to be more orderly in their behavior.

On the other hand, it was abundantly clear, that he perfectly well knew the use to which the apartments were applied by the several lodgers, and that he let the apartments with a full knowledge that they would be applied to the purposes of prostitution, and with a perfect assent on his part to their being so applied.

A question presented itself whether, under these circumstances, the defendant could be considered as having "kept" the house in the legal sense of that term.

Entertaining serious doubt how far the indictment could, on the state of facts I have stated, be supported, I thought it best, on the whole, to direct a verdict of guilty, reserving the case for the consideration of this court. COCKBURN.

No counsel appeared for the prisoner.

November 22, 1862.-Metcalfe (Orridge with him), for the prosecution. It is submitted that the conviction was right. The 25 George III.,1 defines who shall be deemed to be the keeper of a bawdy house, "and whereas by reason of the many subtle and crafty contrivances of persons keeping bawdy houses, gaming houses, and other disorderly houses, it is difficult to prove who is the real owner or keeper thereof, by which means many notorious offenders have escaped punishment, be it enacted, that any person, who shall at any time hereafter appear, act, or behave him or herself as master or mistress, or as the person having the care, government, or management of any bawdy house, gaming house, or other disorderly house, shall be deemed and taken to be the keeper thereof, and shall be liable to be prosecuted and punished as such, notwithstanding he or she shall not, in fact, be the real owner or keeper thereof." [POLLOCK, C. B. What did the landlord do here

-

1 ch. 36, sec. 8.

as master or mistress?] He let it out to young women and so made himself responsible for the nuisance. The depositing of naptha in large quantities in a warehouse has been held to be indictable as a nuisance.1 So in Regina v. Moore,2 the defendant was held indictable for keeping a pigeon shooting ground, and thereby causing persons to come upon the highway adjoining with guns to shoot the stray pigeons. So, here, the landlord may be said to bring these young women together, knowing their way of life and to what uses, in all probability, the apartments will be applied. [POLLOCK, C. B. No doubt the lodgers were each liable for keeping a bawdy house; 3 but in what sense does the landlord keep the house so as to make him liable?] He knew the uses to which the house was to be applied, and so was an accessory before the fact; and under 24 and 25 Victoria,1 was liable to be indicted as a principal offender. He had the power of determining the tenancies, and neglecting to do so was aiding and abetting the lodgers in so using the house. In Rex v. Pedley,5 it was held that the landlord of premises let out on short tenancies was liable for a nuisance arising during the tenancy, that being the consequence of the nature of the erection. So here, the nuisance arises from letting the rooms to these young women with full knowledge of their way of life. In Thompson v. Gibson, the defendants were held liable for continuing a nuisance from a building erected under their superintendence, although they had no right to enter upon the land to remove it. The cases of Rex v. Medley,7 and Rich v. Basterfield, were also referred to.

Cur. adv. vult.

No counsel appeared for the prisoner.

6

Nov. 24, 1863. - POLLOCK, C. B. In this case the facts were that the prisoner, being owner of a house, had let out the whole of it in different apartments to young women whose habits were not of the most moral kind. The prisoner retained no part of the house, and had no control over any part of it whatever. No doubt the persons to whom it was let, and who used it for immoral purposes, were themselves indictable. The prisoner, however, was indicted for keeping a disorderly house, and we are of opinion that, whatever other offense he may have been guilty of, he was not guilty of the crime of keeping a disorderly house. He did not keep the house, nor was any part of it kept by him. He had no right to let any one in or refuse admission to any one during the tenancy. We are, therefore, of opinion that the house was not kept by him, and that the conviction ought to be quashed.

1 Reg. v. Lister, 7 Cox Cr. Cas. 342.

23 B. & Ad. 184.

Pierson's Case, 2 Lord Raym. 1197. 4 ch. 94, sec. 8.

Conviction quashed.

61 A. & E. 822.

67 M. & W. 456.

76 C. & P. 292.

8 4 C. B. 783.