Botts

after making the foregoing statement of the case, delivered the opinion of the court.

The same question of jurisdiction is presented by this writ of error that has been decided in the case of Rosencranz v. United States, 155 Fed. 38 , and for the reasons announced in the opinion filed therein we affirm the action of the lower court overruling the pleas in abatement and the demurrers, and pass to the consideration of other points.

The record shows that the prosecution was conducted upon the theory that if the government proved that the reputation of the house situated upon the lot described in the indictment was that it was a bawdyhouse, and that if defendants as owners knew of such reputation, and with such knowledge received rentals from the occupant, they themselves became keepers of a bawdyhouse for purposes of prostitution, and were liable to punishment as such keepers. Upon this theory the court instructed the jury: “That in all prosecutions for the offense of keeping a bawdyhouse, common fame or reputation is competent evidence in support of the indictment as to the character of the house. Therefore, if the house has the reputation of being a bawdyhouse or house of ill…