Case Name: Bert Wilson v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1911-03-22
Citations: 61 Tex. Crim. 628
Docket Number: No. 924
Parties: Bert Wilson v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 61
Pages: 628–635

Head Matter:
Bert Wilson v. The State.
No. 924.
Decided March 22, 1911.
Rehearing Denied April 12, 1911.
1. —Keeping Disorderly House—Recognizance.
Where, upon appeal from a conviction of a misdemeanor, the recognizance failed to state the amount of punishment inflicted, the same was defective; appellant, however, filed a new recognizance in proper form.
2. —Same—Repeal of Law—Statutes Construed—Vagrancy.
The vagrancy Act of 1909, page 111, did not repeal article 361, Penal Code, under which defendant was prosecuted for keeping a disorderly house.
3. —Same—Information—Description of Place.
Where, upon trial of keeping a disorderly house, the information strictly followed the form laid down in Wilson’s Criminal Procedure the same wac sufficient, and it was not necessary to further describe the house or building than was stated in the information, that it was situated in the county of the prosecution.
4. —Same—Sufficiency of the Evidence—Conflict of Testimony.
The rule is that when a judgment is attacked because of the insufficiency of the evidence, all of the evidence that tends to show that the appellant is guilty should be given, because it is from that alone that the Appellate Court can pass on the legal question as to whether the evidence is sufficient; and where there is sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction the same will not be disturbed.
5. —Same—Evidence—Liquor License.
Where one of the counts in the information charged the defendant with keeping a disorderly house, for selling and keeping for sale spirituous, vinous and malt liquors without license, there was no error to permit the comity clerk to testify that he had issued no liquor dealer’s license to the defendant, without bringing his books; the clerk testifying positively to the facts and having the stubs of the receipts which he issued with him on the witness stand.
6. —Same—Evidence—General Reputation,
Upon trial for unlawfully keeping a disorderly house by being concerned in the sale of spirituous, vinous and malt liquors without license, and also for the purposes of prostitution, there was no error in admitting testimony as to the general reputation of the building or house as to being a place where spirituous, vinous and malt liquors were sold or kept for sale and that the inmates of the house had the general reputation of being prostitutes. Following Joliff v. State, 53 Texas Crim. Rep., 61, and other cases. Davidson, Presiding Judge, dissenting.
7. —Same—Charge of Court—Requested Charge.
Where, upon trial for keeping a disorderly house, the court sufficiently charged the law of the case and the evidence sustained the conviction, there was no error in refusing certain requested charges that the evidence was insufficient.
8. —Same—Circumstantial Evidence—Charge of Court.
Where, upon trial for keeping a disorderly house, the evidence was direct which connected the defendant with the alleged offense, there was no error in not submitting a charge on circumstantial evidence.
9. —Same—Evidence—Bill of Exceptions—Conversation.
Where, upon trial for keeping a disorderly house, one of the inmates testified that she received the company of men in her room of- the alleged house for immoral purposes, etc., there was no error. Neither was there error with reference to a certain conversation between third parties, as the bill of exceptions did not state what the conversation was.
10. —Same—Bill of Exceptions—Practice on Appeal.
Where appellant’s motion for a new trial complained that he was deprived of certain testimony of his codefendant who was then under conviction and serving a sentence for the same offense with which appellant is charged, but the matter was not presented by bill of exceptions nor was it shown that a motion for continuance was made to await the time when said codefendant 'would be qualified to testify, there was no reversible error.
Appeal from the County Court of Potter. Tried below before the Hon. W. H. Jeter.
Appeal from a conviction of keeping a disorderly house; penalty, a fine of $200 and twenty days confinement in the county jail on three counts of the information, for each count.
The opinion states the case.
Reeder & Graham, for appellant.
C. E. Lane, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

Opinion:
PRENDERGAST, Judge.
—This is a misdemeanor case. The appellant was prosecuted on seven different counts and convicted on three, numbered 2, 4 and 6. By No. 2 he was charged with keeping and being concerned in keeping and aiding, abetting, etc., in keeping, and knowingly permitting to be kept as owner,' tenant and lessee, a house, etc., in Potter County, for the purpose of prostitution, and where prostitutes were permitted to resort and reside for the purpose of plying their vocations, on April 5, 1910. And No. 4 charges substantially the same thing on April 6, 1910. No. 6 charges substantially the same thing on April 7, 1910. His punishment was assessed on each of the several counts, Nos. 2, 4 and 6, at a fine of $200 and twenty days in jail.
The Assistant Attorney-General makes a motion to dismiss this appeal, among others, on the ground that the recognizance does not state the amount of punishment inflicted. This ground of the motion is well taken. See authorities cited in Kid Moffett v. State, this day decided.
The motion is granted and the appeal dismissed.
Dismissed.