Case ID: tex-crim_64/html/0489-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "HARPER, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Hattie Nelson, alias, etc., v. The State.
    No. 1503.
    Decided January 10, 1911.
    1.—Keeping Assignation House—Bills of Exception—Motion for New Trial.
    Where the bills of exception to the admission of testimony were sought to be reserved in the motion for new trial, they can not be considered on appeal; besides, they were not signed by the judge.
    3.—Same—Charge of Court—Practice on Appeal.
    Where no special charges were requested and no exceptions taken to the charge of the court, there was nothing to review; besides, the court’s charge was correct.
    3.—Same—Sufficiency of the Evidence.
    Where, upon trial of keeping an assignation house the evidence supports the conviction, there was no error.
    Appeal from the Criminal District Court of Harris. Tried below before the Hon. C. W. Robinson.
    Appeal from a conviction of keeping an assignation house; penalty, a fine of $200 and twenty days confinement in the county jail.
    The opinion states the case.
    No brief on file for appellant.
    
      C. E. Lane, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.
   HARPER, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of keeping an assignation house, and her punishment assessed at a fine of two hundred dollars and twenty days confinement in the county jail.

There are no bills of exceptions in the record, and the effort of appellant to preserve bills of exceptions in the motion for new trial, reciting therein that appellant had objected .to certain testimony can not be considered. Bills of exceptions must be authenticated by the signature of the trial judge, and a recitation in the motion for a new trial, in the absence of bills of exceptions, will not be reviewed. No special charges were asked, and no exceptions taken to the charge of the court as givenconsequently we can not review the charge. If we did so, it. submits the offense' contained in the indictment in a proper manner.

The evidence amply supports the verdict. F. A. Clay and Albert W. Clay testify positively that appellant is the person to whom the house was rented, and who paid the rent, and the testimony of Officers Peyton, Reed and Graham, and Annie McClerkin make a case. Judgment is affirmed.'

Affirmed.