The residence of an unchaste woman, a single prostitute, does not become a bawdy house merely because she admits one or many men to have illicit cohabitation with her. The house must be a common resort for the purpose of prostitution.76 But some courts hold the contrary.77 One act of illicit intercourse in the house is not sufficient to make it a house of ill-fame.78 So a house in which only one unchaste woman may habitually admit one or many men to have illicit intercourse with her, is not a house of ill-fame.79 But some courts hold the contrary.80

69 Hughes Cr. Law, Sec. 2089; People vs. Hampton, 4 Utah, 258; State vs. Toombs, 79 Iowa, 741.

70 9 Am. and Eng. Ency Law, 519;

Betts vs. State. 93 Ind., 375; State vs. Plant, 67 Vt., 454.

71 State vs. Plant, 67 Vt., 454. 72 Hemson vs. State, 62 Md., 231;

State vs. Maxwell, 33 Conn., 259; State vs. Boardman, 64 Me., 523; State vs. Lee, 80 Iowa, 75.

73 State vs. Brunell, 29 Wis., 435;

Drake vs. State, 14 Neb., 535.

74 Harzinger vs. State, 70 Md., 278;

King vs. People, 83 N. Y., 587. 75 Com. vs. Lavonsair, 132 Mass., 1;

King vs. People N. Y., 587;

People vs. Pinkerton, 79 Mich., 110. 76 People vs. Buchanan, 1 Idaho, 589; State vs. Lee, 80 Iowa, 75. 77 People vs. Slater, 119 Cal., 620;

State vs. Young, 96 Iowa, 262.