Case Name: Mrs. R. A. Hardeman v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1923-02-21
Citations: 94 Tex. Crim. 642
Docket Number: No. 7459
Parties: Mrs. R. A. Hardeman v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 94
Pages: 642–644

Head Matter:
Mrs. R. A. Hardeman v. The State.
No. 7459.
Decided February 21, 1923.
Rehearing Denied June 20, 1923.
3. — Bawdyhouse—Substitution—Information and Complaint.
In the absence, of any showing in the transcript that any information or complaint was substituted, and that the original was lost, the matter cannot be considered on appeal.
2. —Same—General Reputation — Prostitute.
Upon trial of keeping a bawdyhouse there was no error in admitting testimony that a number of the inmates of said house were women who had pleaded guilty as prostitutes; that their general reputation was that of common prostitutes, and that they had been fined in court for such offense.
3. —Same—Rehearing—Disorderly House — Rule Stated.
In making, out a disorderly house case it is permissible for the State in any legitimate way to show that the female inmates of such house are prostitutes, and that the defendant was aware of such fact, and one way of mak'ng such proof is to show that prior to the time charged the women resorting to or residing in such house had been charged or convicted of that character of vagrancy arising from being common prostitutes; however, it is not permissible to prove this by oral testimony instead of by the record if the latter can be obtained, as the record evidence is the best evidence. Following Bowman v. State, 73 Texas Crim. Rep., 194.
Appeal from the County Court of Tarrant. Tried below before the Honorable P. W. Seward.
Appeal from a conviction of keeping a bawdy house; Penalty, a fine of two hundred dollars, and twenty days confinement in the county jail.
The opinion states the case.
Mays & Mays, F. M. Chaney, for appellant.
On question of introducing oral testimony as to pleas of guilty to vagrancy; cited cases in opinión.
R. G. Storey, Assistant Attorney General, R. K. Hanger, District Attorney, Robert B. Young, Jr., Assistant District Attorney.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, Judge.
Appellant was convicted in the County Court at law Tarrant County of keeping a bawdy house, and her punishment fixed at a fine of $200 and twenty days in the county jail.
There is complaint in appellant's brief of the manner of substitution of the information and complaint herein. There is no bill of exceptions relating to or presenting this matter, and we find nothing in the transcript from which we derive any information of the fact that there has been such substitution. In this condition of the record it is manifest we can not consider this complaint presented in the brief.
It appears that upon information the officers went to a rooming house in Fort Worth which was occupied by appellant. They asked her in regard to the people in the house and she told them that the only occupants of her rooms at that time were two men. They proceeded to search the house and found in a number of the rooms men in bed and in the rooms with women in various stages of undress. It was shown by sufficient testimony that a number of said women were prostitutes and that they had been charged with vagrancy, to-wit: being common prostitutes and had paid fines therefor. Testimony of the fact that such women had the general reputation of being common prostitutes, and that they had been -charged in court with vagrancy based upon their character as prostitutes, and that they had been fined therefor, would seem to be admissible.
The evidence seems to us to amply support the conclusion of guilt, and finding no error in the record, an affirmance is ordered.
Affirmed.