Case Name: CABINESS v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1912-04-10
Citations: 146 S.W. 934
Docket Number: 
Parties: CABINESS v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 146
Pages: 934–937

Head Matter:
CABINESS v. STATE.
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
April 10, 1912.
On Motion for Rehearing, May 8, 1912.)
1. Criminal Law (§ 772 ) — Instructions— Disjunctive in Form:.
. Where an indictment charges a statutory offense conjunctively, an instruction correctly submits the question in the case in the disjunctive' form.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 1812-1814, 1816, 1817; Dec. Dig. § 772. ]
2.-, Criminal Law (§ 1056 ) — Appeal—Rulings on Instructions — Bill of Exceptions. •
The court in a misdemeanor case will not consider objections to the instructions, unless bills of exceptions are taken at the time the charge is given, and special charges are requested covering the point, and bills taken at the -time to the refusal to give them.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2668, 2670; Dec. Dig. § 1056. ]
On Motion for Rehearing.
3. Disorderly House (§ 17 ) — Evidence-Sufficiency.
Evidence held to support a conviction of keeping a bawdyhouse. •
[Ed.. Note. — For other cases, see Disorderly House, Cent. Dig. §§ 26-29; Dec. Dig. § 17. ]
4. Indictment and Information (§ 125 )— Indictment — Requisites.
Under Pen. Code 1911, arts. 496, 500, defining a bawdyhouse, and punishing any person who shall, directly or as agent for another, or through, any agent, keep or be concerned in keeping a bawdyhouse, an indictment, alleging that accused did unlawfully keep and was con'cerned in keeping a bawdyhouse, where women of ill fame were permitted to resort and reside, is not objectionable as duplicitous, but is valid, within the rule that, where several ways are set forth in a statute by which an offense may be committed, and all are embraced in the same offense and made punishable in the same manner, they may be charged con-junctively in the same count.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Indictment and Information, Cent. Dig. §§ 334-400; Dec. Dig. § 125. ]
5. Indictment and Information (§ 196 )— Defect in Indictment — Waiver.
The defect in an indictment, on the ground that it is duplicitous, was waived, where accused did not, in the trial court, move to quash the indictment on that ground, or raise the question in any other proper manner.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Indictment and Information, Cent. Dig. §§ 628-635; Dec. Dig. § 196. ]
Appeal from Criminal District Court, Harris County; C. W. Robinson, Judge.
F. M. Cabiness was convicted of keeping a bawdyhouse, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Andrews, Ball & Streetman, of Houston, for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., 'for the State.
EVor other'cases'see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
PRENDERGAST, J.
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." 1-Ie was convicted, fined $200 and 20 days in jail.
The court, in charging the jury, correctly stated the offense and defined a bawdyhouse, and then required the jury to believe, • beyond a reasonable doubt, that on or about the time charged the appellant did "keep a bawdyhouse, or was concerned in keeping a bawdyhouse, as that term has hereinbefore been explained to you," to find him guilty, etc. The prosecution was had under article 500, P. C. (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 many years that in misdemeanor cases, as this is, this court cannot 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 cannot 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 Tex. Cr. R. 330, 119 S. W. 861; section 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 a??e 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.