Case Name: BENNETT v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1918-10-23
Citations: 205 S.W. 987
Docket Number: No. 5133
Parties: BENNETT v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 205
Pages: 987–987

Head Matter:
BENNETT v. STATE.
(No. 5133.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Oct. 23, 1918.)
Vagrancy -<@=3 — Evidence—Sufficiency.
In a prosecution for vagrancy, evidence held not sufficient to sustain a conviction.
Appeal from Corporation Court of Tex-arkana ; E. Newt Spivey, Recorder.
Leona Bennett was convicted of vagrancy, and she appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
E. B. Hendricks, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
PRENDERGAST, J.
This is an appeal from a conviction for vagrancy in the corporation court of the city of Texarkana. The complaint alleged vagrancy under subdivisions (b), (c), (d), (i), (j), and (m) of the vagrancy statute. Article 634, P. C.
The only question necessary to be passed upon is whether the evidence is sufficient to authorize her conviction. There were but three witnesses who testified, the chief of police and two policemen of the city of Tex-arkana. All three testified that she lived on Ward street, in Texarkana, in what is known as the sporting house district, and all three swore that she had the reputation of running a house of prostitution. The chief swore that he knew her, and had known her for several years. One of the policemen swore that he had known her since about January 1, 1913. The other policeman swore he had known her for 18 years. Each of the policemen swore that on one or two occasions he had seen one or two other women at the place she lived. One swore that he does not know whether or not she has any occupation. The other swore the same, and that he never did see her do any work. This is the whole of the testimony, and it is wholly insufficient to authorize her conviction.
Reversed and remanded.