THE OLDEST PROFESSION.

NZ Truth, Issue 327, 30 September 1911, Page 5

THE OLDEST PROFESSION.

A LEGAL LOOP-HOLE.

[From "Truth's"- ChcistcHurch Rep.]

| The anomaly m the law which prevents two women of deplorable habits from using premises for the purpose of their traffic, „ yet . permits one woman to occupy' a house m the same deplorable manj ner. has frequently been the subject !of comment and has even been disj cussed by learned judges, who have I practically granted immunity to the | lone female who is no better than ; she ought to be. Nevertheless | THE POLICE ARE NOT SATISi FIED, , one result of their dissatisfaction.: i beinsr the prosecution m Christchurch !of May Oakley on charges (1) of I keeping a brothel m Moorhouse ' Avenue, Adding-ton ; (2) knowingly permitting premises of which she was the occupier to be used for purposes of prostitution ; wiih being an idle and disorderly person. It will be seen that the weapon aimed at I the head of May has three barrels, and among the lot a dead bird j was anticipated.- The defendant is described as a clever little woman own-ing property, who okteußßd legal advice on the subject and carried on her "business" with quiet openness and without disorder. The case is of especial public interest on account . ?of the law point raised. Lawyer Don-nelly, who defended, explained that his presence m the<case was due to the law aspect, un.der which, m Ms opinion, the woman should not he convicted. The first charge of keeping a "house" rested upon' tho-'presence m the domicile of a young woman named Eva Yelland, whom the police described as a reputed person -of ill-fame. ' It was contended for >tho defence that sho was «, domestic j servant, and that her residence m the -house didn't constitute it a brothel under tho Act. The facts were undisputed. cTiCoptiny inasfar as they related to Yelland. Constable Pratt had 2t; Moorhouse Avenue under observation for vsix' nionlhK, during which time the male visitors at night satisfied him-, about THE CHARACTER OF THE HOUSE, if May had not herself acknowledged it. In course of conversation with the copper the woman admitted that personally she lived m a. manner reprobated by the moral code, but Eva Yelland's sole function m 'the house was domestic service. The Policeman knew nothing of Yelland, excepting that she was a reputed prostitute. In reply to Mr Donnelly the hobby said he believed that May was a woman who didn't drink or permit •liquor to be brought on to her premises. The second time he visited the house he was sent for by the woman, who complained about certain men from Christchurch coming t o her place m a drurfken state. She wouldn't admit them, but believed '■'that they hadn't gone away hut were concealed m stables close by. OaJtley spoke to him freely about her business, anil its legality with a -housemaid on the premises, and tho constable advised her to consult a solicitor. Further, he told her therewould 1 o less liability of trouble if she employed an aged woman as housemaid, preferably an okl acve pensioner. May said .she had acted on legal advice m employing Ev a as a general servant. The constable didn't know of his own knowledge that Eva. was one of the "profession," but he had reason to believe that she was. Constable Hog an. who had known Yelland for three years, characterised her as a reputed prostitute. Inquiries had been made about the maintcn ; nce of her illegitimate child, and as a result thereof no action jwss tn'rn against the reputed jfnih-r. ;.YJr i on". !'y : There was no co:vi:bc ration. ■.•Uel-h-'i William Lester, a neio,li-be-.r, said tluvt the conduct of the

house was all right, "but what he complained of was men coming to .his place and asking for Miss Oakley and May Oakley, whilst others did. not know what they wanted! One night his daughter answered the door, and i • ■ | AS SHE WAS RATHER LONG away Lester investigated and found a man with a foot and an arm. m the do o rw.ay. Sub-Inspector McGrath decided to .call Ev a Yelland. "If anybody 3snows anything about it she d*»es," he commented. Eva said she answered' an advertisement m the ''Star" for a housemaid, and afterwards got the billet /n August, receiving 15s per week. She produced a little book showing receipts for various amounts. May explained to her, significantly, "I do receive gentlemen friends, but what you do and what I do are different things." Eva was a woman of the world and had sonae idea what Muy received the gentlemen for. She denied anything of the sort o n her own part. It was her intention to leave the house and join her sister. The Sub. at this stage said that unless Magistrate Bailey was satisfied that Eva Yelland carried o n the traffic mi n the house the first information must fall. Mr DonneDy quoted the case of Cassells v. Hutchison, an appeal by the police from the decision of Magistrate lliddell, and m which the Court of Appeal hold that a house occupied, by one woman who practised her deplorable profession was not a brothel within the meaning, of the Act. .Sub-Inspector McGrath, by a coincidence, carried the point to the Court of Appeal jn Wellington as chief detective. In that case the house was taken and the rent paid by the female respondent for some months prior to the 'laying of the information. She admitted that certain men visitors came there for im<moral purposes. The only difference m this case was that there was another woman living m the Adding■ton house. Mr Donnelly pointed out that immorality bY Yelland had not been, proved, her residence m the house did not make her one of the profession, and no wonian employed as ai domestic - servant could be assumed, to be AN IMMORAL PERSON. Magistrate Bailey said he knew it was difficult to obtain evidence m these cases, but m the absence of testimony respecting the woman Yelland he didn't feel justified m acting- on the assumption that she had bee n engaged m immoral practices. The information, was dismissed. The second charge of permitting her premises to be used for deplorable purposes was then read, a plea of not guilty being entered. Mr Donnelly admitted the evidence already lakop The Sub- Inspector submitted that this information must hold. He minted the definition of a brothel i!i\d.?r the Act, viz., "any house, room, set of rooms, or place of any kind whatever kept for the purposes o f habitual prostitution. *' The information was laid under sub-sec-tio n Bof section 204 of the Justices of the Peace Act, which corresponded with sub-section 2 of section 29 of the Summ a ry Jurisdiction Act, 1904. The case of Cassells v. Hutchison, cited by Mr Donnelly, threw some light on the' present charge, particularly the summing up of the Chief ■! 1 Ut, where he referred to the definition of a brothel. His remarks, <h.> »n\\ conkirii'ii. proved that au aitfrnniivc ofiencc was provided for by <lisv.TinMn-Uin.!'- lu'tv.dn (1) permitting piVLiiu;rvi io hi* used as a brothel, and (2) permitting- premises to hv used for purposes of habitual prostitution. He contended that the

second part of the section covered^ a. worn an '. CARRYING ON THE TRAFFIC m her own home. Mr Donnelly quoted Beale's Cardinal Rules o f Inter pretatio n (44) to show that .if the interpretation of a section were capable of two -meanings m this case, the one that left the woman outside the penalty was the one that should, be adopted. The Sub-Inspector said that when! reading the ca-so of Singleton v., T^llison one of the judges said he wasn't bound by the definition of a brothel given by Mr Justice Stephen, and which had been copied into our Act. His Worship reserve.! his decision. The Sub. offered no evidence m thei vagrancy informal-ions against Oak-^ ley and Wllatid, and both werewithdrawn. Thf Sub. expressed pleasure at the information that Yel!and intended to "turn over a new ; I leaf. '-'