Case Name: THOMPSON v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1910-10-10
Citations: 134 S.W. 350
Docket Number: 
Parties: THOMPSON v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 134
Pages: 350–353

Head Matter:
THOMPSON v. STATE.
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Oct. 12, 1910.
On Motion for Rehearing, Feb. 22, 1911.)
1. Ceiminal Haw (§ 1110 ), — But op Exceptions— Sufficiency.
A bill of exceptions cannot ’be aided by a statement in reply to a motion for new trial or by the statement of facts.
[Ed. Note! — For other cases, see Criminal Haw, Cent. Dig. § 2908; Dec. Dig. § 1110. ]
2. Disorderly House (§ 16 ) — Evidence — Admissibility.
Defendant, accused of keeping a disorderly house, can show by any one cognizant of the facts that people had not frequented the house for immoral purposes at or about the time made by the state’s proof.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Disorderly House, Cent. Dig. § 23; Dec. Dig. § 16. ]
3. Criminal Haw (§ 1093 ) — Bill of Exceptions — Sufficiency.
In a prosecution for keeping a disorderly house, a bill of exceptions to exclusion of testimony that witness had watched the house frequently, and had seen no one enter or leave and nothing improper, is insufficient to show error
where the time to which the testimony relates is not shown.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. % 2832; Dec. Dig. § 1093. ]
4. Criminal Law (§ 1170 ) — Harmless Eb-bok — Evidence—Exclusion.
It was not reversible error to exclude testimony of one accused of keeping a disorderly house that she had not aided or encouraged any one in conducting such a house, where, she was permitted to testify to her connection with the premises and the purposes for which they were kept.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 3145-3153; Dec. Dig. § 1170. ]
5. Ceiminal Law (§ 450 ) — Opinions—Subjects.
On a trial for keeping a disorderly house, witness cannot give an opinion as to how long it would take to overcome a, house’s reputation as being disorderly, that being a question for the jury to determine.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Dec. Dig. § 450. ] '
Appeal from Tarrant County Court; John L. Terrell, Judge.
Mabel Thompson was convicted of keeping a disorderly house, and she appeals.
Affirmed.
Warren W. Moore, for appellant. John A. Mobley, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep’r Indexes
For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Deo. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep’r Indexes.

Opinion:
RAMSEY, J.
On the 26th day of February, this year, appellant was found guilty in the county court of Tarrant county of keeping a disorderly house, and her punishment assessed at a fine of $200 and 20 days' confinement in the county jail. There is evidence in the record amply sustaining the judgment. There is no complaint made of the charge of the court.
1.The first seven bills of exception are substantially to the same effect. Appellant introduced a number of witnesses, and as appears from the bill proposed to prove by such witnesses the following facts: "That witness had been to house of defendant frequently during this time, and had been in said house frequently during this time, and had watched the house, and had seen. no man come in and go out, and no woman come in and go out, and nothing improper about the place from the time this order was passed." That it would be competent to show by any witness cognizant of the facts that men and women had not frequented the house in question for immoral purposes at or about the time made by the state's evidence, there would seem to be no doubt. The trouble with the bill of exceptions is that it does not specify any time covered by the state's evidence, nor any time within the period of limitation. It seems to refer to a time when Some order was passed. When this order was passed is not shown by the bill nor is it otherwise shown in the record. It is well settled that a bill of exceptions cannot be aided either by a statement in reply to a motion for new trial or by the statement of facts. Douglas v. State, 124 S. W. 933. As presented, the bill of exceptions, tested by its recitals, or read in the light of the entire record, is insufficient in that the time of the matter sought to be shown does not appear to be of such date as to render the testimony admissible.
2. On the trial it was proposed to be shown by appellant that she had not aided or abetted or encouraged any one in carrying on a disorderly house or bawdyhouse upon her premises. This was objected to on the ground that the question was leading, and it called for a conclusion. Appellant testified practically in detail as to her connection with the house in question and the purposes for which it was kept. The' testimony in the. form sought to be adduced was largely in the nature of a conclusion, and, if admitted, could have added nothing to the strength of appellant's denial that the house in question was a disorderly house.
3. While the witness Douglass was on the stand he was asked the question as to a house which had been run as a disorderly house for a number of years, and which had acquired the reputation of being a disorderly house, and had ceased to be kept for such purpose, how long it would take it to get over that reputation. To this the state objected on the ground that this question was but an argument and called for a conclusion of the witness. The bill recites that if permitted the witness would have testified that it would take several months for such house to get over its reputation if it had been run as a disorderly house for several years. This was not a matter of expert knowledge or a subject about which the witness should have been permitted to testify. If the house had been theretofore conducted as a disorderly house, on an issue that such conduct of the house had been thereafter abandoned, and that it was not so kept at the date of the charge, this would have been a question of fact for the jury to have considered.
Finding no error in the record, it is ordered that the judgment of conviction be, and1 the same is hereby, affirmed.