Case Name: LAWSON v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1915-11-10
Citations: 179 S.W. 1186
Docket Number: No. 3813
Parties: LAWSON v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 179
Pages: 1186–1187

Head Matter:
LAWSON v. STATE.
(No. 3813.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Nov. 10, 1915.)
X. Criminal Law &wkey;>1102 — Statement of Facts — Time for Filing".
A statement of facts, filed more than 20 days after the adjournment of the court, will be stricken on motion.
TEd. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Dec. Dig. &wkey;?1102.]
2. Indictment and Information <®=»137 — Motion to Quash — Grounds.
An indictment for knowingly permitting his house to be used for purposes of prostitution would not be quashed because defendant’s name did not immediately follow the words “upon their oaths in said court present that, * * * ” where the indictment as a whole clearly alleged that defendant committed acts which under the statute would make him guilty of the offense, or on the ground that it did not allege more than that the premises were in the county, as it was not necessary to allege particularly where they were situated.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Indictment and Information, Cent. Dig. §§ 480^487; Dec. Dig. <&wkey;137.]
Appeal from Childress County Court; Frank W. Freeman, Judge.
A. D. Lawson was convicted for knowingly permitting his house to be used for purpose of prostitution, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
C. C. McDonald, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
PRBNDEÍRGAST, P. J.
Appellant was convicted for knowingly permitting his house to be used for purposes of prostitution, and assessed the punishment prescribed by the statute.
There is in the record what purports to he a statement of facts, but it was filed much more than 20 days after the adjournment of court. The Assistant Attorney General's motion to strike it out on that ground is therefore sustained.
The only question which we can review in the absence of a statement of facts is his motion- to quash the indictment His first ground to quash is that appellant's name does not appear in the indictment where it should, claiming that it should immediately follow these words in the indictment: "Upon their oaths in said court present that. " There is nothing in this, for the indictment as a whole clearly alleges that the appellant, A. D. Lawson, with suitable allegations, in conformity with the statute, did commit the acts which would show that he is guilty of the offense. His Second ground is that the indictment does not allege particularly where the house was located in the county where the offense was alleged to have been committed. This was unnecessary. It alleged that the house was situated in said Childress county, which was all that was necessary.
The judgment is affirmed.
@=oEor other oases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes