Laine

People v. Laine

Good Law
1919 Cal. App. LEXIS 385·41 Cal. App. 345·182 P. 986
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 2, 1919Civ. No. 1952.California2,066 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Hart, J.

The district attorney of Sacramento County filed in the superior court a complaint praying that the property at No. 223 L Street, in the city of Sacramento, be enjoined as a nuisance, by virtue of the provisions of the so-called “Red-light Abatement Act.” (Stats. 1913, p. 20.) The premises, which are owned by the defendant, Laura B. Laine, are occupied by defendant Charles F. Gibney as a dance-hall, where approximately thirty-five girls- are employed. Judgment was entered in favor of plaintiff and directing that the building and premises be kept closed for one year, etc. The appeal is by defendants from said judgment.

It was charged in the amended complaint that “said premises were and now are used for purposes of lewdness, assignation, and prostitution, and upon said premises acts of lewdness, assignation, and prostitution were held and did occur, and said premises were and now are a nuisance under the laws of the state of California.”

Defendants filed a demurrer to the amended complaint, in which, among other grounds, they specified that “in said amended complaint three causes of action are set forth and no one of them is so stated as to be sufficient to constitute a cause of…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.