Case Name: F. M. Cabiness v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1912-04-10
Citations: 66 Tex. Crim. 409
Docket Number: No. 1505
Parties: F. M. Cabiness v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 66
Pages: 409–416

Head Matter:
F. M. Cabiness v. The State.
No. 1505.
Decided April 10, 1912.
Rehearing Denied May 8, 1912.
1. —Keeping Disorderly House—Bawdy House—Charge of Court.
Where the indictment, upon trial of keeping a bawdy house, properly charged the offense under Article 500; Revised Penal Code, in the conjuctive form, and the court correctly submitted the question in the disjunctive form, there was no error.
2. —Same—Misdemeanor—Practice on Appeal.
In misdemeanor cases this court will not consider any objections to the charge of the court unless bills of exception are taken at the time the charge is given, and special charges requested covering the points, and in case of lefusal, a bill of exceptions must be reserved thereto.
3. —Same—Sufficiency of the Evidence—Newly Discovered Evidence.
Where, upon trial of keeping a bawdy house, the evidence sustained the conviction, and the alleged newly discovered evidence in no way met the requirements of the law, there was no error.
4. —Same—Indictment—Duplicitous Pleading—Rule Stated.
Where several ways are set forth in the same statute by which an offense may be committed and all are embraced in the same definition and made punishable in the same manner, they are not distinct offenses and they may be charged conjunctively in the same count. Following Phillips v. State, 29 Texas, 226, and other eases. Distinguishing Porter v. State, 48 Texas Crim. Rep., 125; Novy v. State, 62 Texas Crim. Rep., 492, 138 S. W. Rep., 139.
5. —Same—Case Stated—Conjunctive Pleading.
Where the indictment alleged that the defendant did then and there unlawfully keep and was concerned in keeping • a certain house then situate as a bawdy house and as a house where prostitutes were permitted to resort and reside for the purpose of plying their vocation, the same was sufficient under Article 500, Eevised Eenal Code.
6.—Same—Duplicitous Pleading—Motion to Quash—Waiver.
Where no motion to quash was made in the court below on the ground of duplicitous pleading, and the question' of insufficient indictment on that ground was not raised in the lower court the defendant thereby waived such defect. Following Nicholas v. State, 23 Texas Crim. App., 317, and other oases.
Appeal from the Criminal District Court of Harris. Tried below before the Hon. C. W. Robinson.
Appeal from a conviction of keeping a bawdy house; penalty, a fine of $200 and twenty days confinement in thé county jail.
The opinion states the case.
Andrews, Ball & Streetman, for appellant.
On the question of the insufficiency of the indictment: Hammons v. State, 29 Texas Crim. App., 445; Porter v. State, 48 Texas Crim. Rep., 125; Novy v. State, 62 Texas Crim. Rep., 492, 138 S. W. Rep., 139.
On the question of the insufficiency of the evidence: McElhaney v. State, 12 Texas Crim. App., 231; Harmes v. State, 26 id., 190; Johnson v. State, 28 id., 562; Allen v. State, 15 id., 320; Burton v. State, 16 id., 156; Gamel v. State, 21 id., 357; Loraine v. State, 22 id., 640; Sara v. State, id., 639; Owens v. State, 53 Texas Crim. Rep., 1; Machen v. State, id., 115; Steed v. State, 43 id., 567; Barney v. State, 39 id., 200; O’Brien v. State, 55 id., 431.
On question of the court’s charge: Guest v. State, 24 Texas Crim. App., 530; Hickman v. State, 22 id., 441; English v. State, 29 id., 174.
C. E. Lane, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

Opinion:
PRENDERGAST, Judge.
On September 26, 1910, the grand jury of Harris County indicted appellant charging that on or about August 25, 1910, in said county, he "did unlawfully keep and was concerned in keeping a certain house then situate, as a bawdy house and as a house where prostitutes were permitted to resort and reside for the purpose of plying their vocation." He was convicted, fined $200 and twenty days "in jail.
The court in charging the jury correctly stated the offense and defined a bawdy house and then required the jury to believe beyond a reasonable doubt that on or about the time charged the appellant did "keep a bawdy house or was concerned in keeping a- bawdy house, as that term has hereinbefore been explained to you," to find him guilty, etc. The prosecution was had under article 500, Penal Code (new). The indictment clearly and properly charged the offense in the conjunctive form. The court correctly submitted the question in the disjunctive form.
There is no bill of exceptions in the record. Neither is there any bill of exceptions to the charge of the court in any particular, nor was any special charge requested on any subject. It has been the uniform holding of this court for many years that in misdemeanor cases as this is, this court can not and will not consider any objections to the charge of the court unless bills are taken at the time the charge is given, and special charges requested covering the point, and bills taken at the time to the refusal of the court to give such special charges. Hence, we can not consider any of appellant's objections to the charge of the court for the first time and only made in the motion for new trial. Basquez v. State, 56 Texas Crim., 329; sec. 813, subdiv. 6, White's Ann. C. C. P., p. 533, for collated cases.
The evidence showing the appellant's guilt is ample, clear and convincing. Appellant's claim, in his motion for new trial, of newly discovered evidence in no way meets the requisites therefor prescribed by law.
We have carefully considered the record and appellant's brief and authorities cited by him and are of the opinion that no error is shown that would authorize or permit this court to reverse the case. The judgment will, therefore, be affirmed.
Affirmed.