Case Name: HAMMONDS v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1925-05-20
Citations: 272 S.W. 791
Docket Number: No. 8603
Parties: HAMMONDS v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 272
Pages: 791–791

Head Matter:
HAMMONDS v. STATE.
(No. 8603.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
May 20, 1925.)
Indictment and information <&wkey;>i 10(51) — Indictment for pandering, in language of statute, held insufficient.
'Indictment for pandering, in language of statute, %eld insufficient, as alleging no facts showing how offense was committed.
Appeal from District Court, Callahan County; W. R. Ely, Judge.
Harrison Hammonds was convicted of pandering, and appeals.
Reversed, and case dismissed.
Ben D. Russell, of Baird, and W. J. Cunningham and J. P. Cunningham, both of Abilene, for appellant.
Milburn S. Dong, Dist. Atty., of Abilene, and Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State. '

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, J.
Conviction in the district court of Callahan county for pandering ; punishment 5 years ip the penitentiary.
In our view of the case we notice but one contention. The indictment contained a number of counts, the státe electing to prosecute under the first, which is as follows:
"In the county and state aforesaid, Harrison Hammonds did, then and there, unlawfully procure, and was concerned in procuring with her consent, a female inmate, to wit, Anna Erwin, for a house of prostitution."
Appellant made a motion to quash on the ground that the indictment charged no offense against the laws of the state. The indictment follows the language of the statute. This was held not to be sufficient in Kennedy v. State, 86 Tex. Cr. R. 450, 216 S. W. 1086, which discusses the question at length. We see no reason for disagreeing with the holding in that case. An examination of the instant indictment will show that it sets out no facts showing how the offense was committed by appellant. It does not set out as much as ,did the indictment in the Kennedy Case, supra.
For the failure of the indictment to charge an offense^ the - judgment must be reversed, and the case ordered dismissed.
^=>For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes