Case Name: WILSON v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1911-02-08
Citations: 136 S.W. 447
Docket Number: 
Parties: WILSON v. STATE.
Judges: DAVIDSON, P. X, dissents.
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 136
Pages: 447–451

Head Matter:
WILSON v. STATE.
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Feb. 8, 1911.
On Rehearing, March 22, 1911.
Rehearing Denied April 12, 1911.)
1.Bail (§ 65 ) — Recognizance—Recitals— Punishment.
A misdemeanor appeal will be dismissed where the recognizance does • not state the amount of punishment imposed.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Bail, Cent. Dig. § 285; Dec. Dig. § 65. ]
On Rehearing.
2. Criminal Law (§ 15 ) — Repeal of Statute,
The vagrancy act of 1909, p. Ill, punishing as vagrants every keeper of a house of prostitution, etc., and repealing all conflicting laws, did not repeal Pen. Code, art. 361, making one who keeps a disorderly house subject to fine.
[Bd. Note. — For other oases, see Criminal Law, Dec. Dig. § 15. ]
3. Disorderly House (§ 12 ) — Prosecution —Information—Identification of House.
An information charging the keeping of a disorderly house sufficiently identified the house by alleging that it was in a certain county.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Disorderly House, Cent. Dig. § 15; Dec. Dig. § 12. ]
4. Criminal Law (§ 1121 ) — Appeai>-Statement of Facts — Evidence.
In order to raise the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to convict, the record must, contain all of the evidence tending to show accused’s guilt.
[Ed. Note.. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2938, 2939; Dee. Dig. § 1121. ]
5. Criminal Law (§ 1159 ) — Appeal—Findings— Conclusiveness.
The Court of Criminal Appeals cannot disturb the jury’s findings as to the credibility of witnesses, or weight of their evidence.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 3074-3083; Dec. Dig. § 1159. }
6. Disorderly House (§ 17 ) — Prosecution —Sufficiency of Evidence.
Evidence in a prosecution for keeping a disorderly house held to sustain a conviction.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Disorderly House, Cent. Dig. §§ 26-29; Dec. Dig. § 17. )
7. Criminal Law (§ 400 ) — Evidence—Best Evidence.
In prosecution for keeping a disorderly house, the county clerk could testify from the stubs of receipts issued for liquor licenses, which were his only records of licenses issued, that he issued no license to accused, over an objection that his books were the best evidence of that fact.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 879-886; Dec. Dig. § 400. ]
8. Disorderly House (§ 16 ) — Prosecution-Flaw in Record — Admission of Evidence.
In a prosecution for keeping a disorderly house, evidence of the general reputation of the house as a place where intoxicants were sold, and of the inmates as being prostitutes, was admissible; the extent of witness’ information as to the reputation of the house and the number of persons whom he had heard speak thereof going rather to the weight of the evidence than to its admissibility.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Disorderly House, Cent. Dig. §§ 21-25; Dec. Dig. § 16, J
9. Criminal Law (§ 784 ) — Instruction-Circumstantial Evidence.
Where the evidence directly connected accused with the offense a charge on circumstantial evidence was not necessary.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 1883-1888, 1922; Dec. Dig. § 784. ]
10. Criminal Law (§ 1120 ) — Appeal—Record — Bill of Exceptions — Evidence.
Where the bill of exceptions does not state what the conversations were which are claimed to be hearsay, the question cannot be reviewed.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2931-2937; Dec. Dig. § 1120. ]
11. Ceiminal Raw (§ 1091 )—New Trial-Absence of Witness—Motion for Continuance—Necessitx..
Where the failure to grant a motion for a new trial for absence of a witness then in the penitentiary is not presented by a bill of exception, and it is not shown that such convict was offered as a witness, or that a motion was made for continuance until he could be obtained, error cannot be predicated upon such refusal.
[Ed. Note.—Por other cases, see Criminal Law, Dec. Dig. § 1091. J
Davidson, P. J., dissenting.
Appeal from Potter County. Court; W. M. Jeter, Judge.
Bert' Wilson was convicted of keeping a disorderly bouse, and be appeals.
Affirmed.
Reeder & Grabam, for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for tbe State.
For other oases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep’r Indexes
For other oases see same topic and section NUMBER in Deo. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
PRENDERGAST, J.
This is a misdemeanor case. Tbe appellant was prosecuted on seven different counts and convicted on three, numbered 2, 4, and 6. By No. 2 be 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 bouse, etc., in Potter county, for tbe purpose of prostitution, and where prostitutes were permitted to resort and reside for tbe 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 20 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 Merfett v. State, 135 S. W. 573 (this day decided).
The motion is granted, and the appeal dismissed.