Hall

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

Plaintiff in error first presents the same question of jurisdiction that we have considered and decided in the case of Rosencranz v. United States, 155 F. 38 ; Hornstein v. United States, 155 F. 48 , and Botts v. United States, 155 F. 50 . Upon the authority of those decisions we hold that the District Court for the District of Alaska had jurisdiction of the case, and that it properly overruled the plea and demurrer.

In this case, as'in that of Botts and Haughey v. United States (just decided by this court) 155 F. 50 , error is assigned upon the charge of the court that, “in all prosecutions for the offense of keeping a bawdyhouse, common fame or reputation is competent evidence in support óf the indictment as to the character of the house. Therefore, if the house has the reputation of being a bawdyhouse or house of ill fame beyond a reasonable doubt, that is sufficient to support a finding that it was such, and if there is *798 no evidence offered to the contrary. * * * ” This was an erroneous statement of the law, as we have shown in the case of United States v. Botts and Haughey, supra, in…