Case Name: Rosie Hardeman v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1925-06-03
Citations: 100 Tex. Crim. 358
Docket Number: No. 8951
Parties: Rosie Hardeman v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 100
Pages: 358–360

Head Matter:
Rosie Hardeman v. The State.
No. 8951.
Delivered June 3, 1925.
1. —Keeping Bawdy House — Appeal Bond — Defective—Cause Dismissed.
In the absence of an order of the court fixing the amount of the appeal bond, at the time it was entered into, on the 22nd day of May, 1924, the bona was invalid, and on motion of the state for this cause, the appeal is dismissed, and appellant is granted 15 days in which to file a correct appeal bond.
ON REHEARING.
2. —Same—Corrected Bond — Cause Reinstated.
Appellant has shown to this court that the record has been corrected, in respect to the appeal bond, and the appeal is reinstated.
3. —Same—Evidence—Of Keeping — Essential Elements.
A bawdy house is defined to be one kept for prostitution, or where prostitutes are permitted to resort or reside for purposes of plying their vocation. To sustain a conviction, it must be shown that the house in question is a house of prostitution, or is a house where prostitutes are permitted to resort, or reside for the purpose of plying their vocation. Neither of the constituents of this offense can be sustained by proof of a single act of prostitution in the house in question. Following People v. Gastro 75 Mich. 133.
Appeal from the County Court at Law of Tarrant County. Tried below before the Hon. P. W. Seward, Judge.
Appeal from a conviction of keeping a bawdy house; penalty, a fine of $400.00 and forty days in jail.
The opinion states the case.
Jno. W. Baskin and Sam S. Beene, for appellant.
Tom Garrard, State’s Attorney, and Grover G. Morris, Assistant State’s Attorney, for the State.

Opinion:
BERRY, Judge.
Appellant was convicted in the County Court at Law of Tarrant County for the offense of keeping a bawdy house and her punishment assessed at a fine of $400.00 and forty days in jail.
The State has filed a motion to dismiss this case on account of defects concerning the appeal bond.
Art. 918, Code of Criminal Procedure, as amended by the Acts of the Thirty-sixth Legislature, Chapter 18, Sec. 1, set out in Vernon's Code of Criminal Procedure, Art. 918 of the 1922 Supplement, provides for bonds in this character of cases to be taken by the sheriff in an amount to be fixed by the court, which bond must be approved by either the sheriff or the judge who tried the case or his successor in office.
The record does not disclose affirmatively that the judge trying the ease ever fixed the amount of the bond in any manner; but .it appears that after the bond had been executed some two days the trial court approved it as to form and amount and the sheriff approved it as to sureties. In the absence of an order of the court fixing the amount of the bond at the time it was entered into on the 22nd day of May, 1924, the bond was invalid and not subject to forfeiture. The bond being invalid at the time it was signed by the principal and sureties, it could not subsequently to made valid by the action of the court in approving it as to form and amount. We think the contention of the State in the matter is correct, and accordingly hold that the bond is not valid under the article of the statute above quoted. Turpin v. State, 86 Texas Crim. Rep. 96, and authorities therein cited.
Appellant is hereby allowed 15 days from this date to file a correct appeal bond under the statute, otherwise the judgment shall become final.
Because the appeal bond is invalid, the appeal is hereby dismissed.
Dismissed.
The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.