Case Name: CLARK v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1920-02-04
Citations: 218 S.W. 366
Docket Number: No. 5649
Parties: CLARK v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 218
Pages: 366–367

Head Matter:
CLARK v. STATE.
(No. 5649.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Feb. 4, 1920.)
1. Disorderly house <§=>3 — Statutory definition of “bawdyhouse.”
By Pen. Code 1911, art. 496, a bawdyhouse is one kept for prostitution, or where prostitutes are permitted to resort or reside for the purpose of plying their vocation.
[Ed. Note. — For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, First and Second Series, Bawdy-house.]
2. Criminal law <⅜=>780(2) — Charge on accomplice TESTIMONY IN PROSECUTION FOR KEEPING BAWDYHOUSE PROPER.
In prosecution for keeping a bawdyhouse, where a witness testified to'facts showing she was a prostitute, used defendant’s house to ply her vocation, with defendant’s knowledge, and shared receipts with her, defendant was entitled to have the law of accomplice testimony, as de- dared in Code Or. Proc. 1911, art. 801, applied to the testimony of such witness.
31 Criminal law @=>780(1) — Proper refusal OF CHARGE ON ACCOMPLICE TESTIMONY IN PROSECUTION FOR KEEPING BAWDYHOUSE.
In a prosecution for keeping a bawdyhouse, as to witnesses, male and female, who frequented the house or used it for purposes of assignation, the trial court properly refused to instruct on the law of accomplice testimony as declared in Code Or. Proc. 1911, art. 801.
4. Criminal law @=1091(14) — Separate EXCEPTIONS TO CHARGE ON SINGLE PAPER WILL BE CONSIDERED.
Where the various exceptions of defendant to the court’s charge, certified as a bill of exceptions, showing pi-esentation and action upon them in due time, are in separate paragraphs, each paragraph being specific and complying with statute, the fact that all are contained in one paper, the subdivisions being segregated and numbered, each sufficient to advise the trial court and the Court of Criminal Appeals of the complaint directed at the charge and the refusal of a special charge, does not vitiate the exception nor warrant the court in ignoring it.
Appeal from McLennan County Court; James P. Alexander, Judge.
Winnie Clark was convicted of keeping a bawdyhouse, and appeals.
Reversed, and cause remanded.
W. L. Eason, of Waco, for appellant.
Alvin M. Owsley, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
MORROW, J.
The appellant was convicted of the offense of keeping a bawdy-house. A bawdyhouse is one kept for prostitution, or where prostitutes are permitted to resort or reside for the purpose of plying their vocation. Pen. Code, art. 496.
One of the witnesses for the state, Alice Tiller, testified to facts showing that she was a common prostitute; that she used appellant's house for the purpose of plying her vocation, with the knowledge of appellant, and shared with her the money received therefor. This witness, according to her testimony, attended to the business of keeping the house for appellant during her absence. The appellant sought on the trial, by exceptions to the court's charge, and by requested charge, the refusal of which was excepted to, to have the law of accomplice testimony, as declared in. article 801, C. C. P.,, applied to the testimony of this witness. The law entitled the appellant to this instruction: O'Brien v. State, 201 S. W. 179, and cases therein referred to. The evidence characterizes her as something more than a mere inmate of the house. She aided in keeping it. Her relation to it is distinguished from that of the witness referred to in the case of Stone v. State, 47 Tex. Cr. R. 575, 85 S. W. 808, who was a mere inmate, renting a room in the house. Some of the witnesses relied on by the state were men and women who frequented the house, or at least used it for the purpose of assignation. Their attitude would bring them, we think, within the rule stated in Stone's Case, and as to them the court committed no error in refusing to instruct the jury on the law of accomplice testimony.
The Assistant Attorney General concedes that, if the question was properly raised, the error is fatal to the conviction: We find in the record the various exceptions of the appellant to the court's charge, certified as a bill of exceptions, showing the presentation and action upon them in due time. These exceptions are in separate paragraphs; each paragraph being in itself specific, and fully complying with the statute. We think the fact that they are all contained in one paper, the subdivisions being segregated and numbered, each sufficient in itself to advise the trial court and this court of the complaint directed at the charge and the refusal of the special charge, does not vitiate the exception, nor warrant this court in ignoring it. See Bank v. Ricketts, 177 S. W. 531.
The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.
<§=>For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes