Case Name: Leona Bennett v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1922-03-15
Citations: 91 Tex. Crim. 422
Docket Number: No. 6745
Parties: Leona Bennett v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 91
Pages: 422–425

Head Matter:
Leona Bennett v. The State.
No. 6745.
Decided March 15, 1922.
Rehearing Denied April 5, 1922.
1.—Keeping House of Prostitution—Recognizance—Misdemeanor—Form.
•
_ Where upon examination of the form of recognizance required by article 919, C. C. P., in cases of misdemeanor, the fact is revealed that the recognizance in the instant case is in the exact language of that appearing in the amended law, the motion to strike out on. account of insufficient recognizance is overruled.
2. —Same—Caption of Transcript—Practice on Appeal.
Where, on account of the lack of the definiteness of the caption, the motion to dismiss by the State was sustained, yet upon a correct and certified caption, the case is heard upon its merits.
3. —Same—Requested Charge—Bill of Exceptions—Sufficiency of the Evidence
Where neither of the special charges presented reversible error, because not in proper form and not applicable to the issues of the case, the same were correctly refused; besides, this court has held that a conviction may be sustained where but one prostitute resides in the alleged disorderly house. Following Ramey v. State, 39 Texas Crim. Rep., 200.
4. —Same—Bills of Exception—Reputation of House—Bawdyhouse.
Upon trial of keeping a house of prostitution, there was no error in admitting testimony that the said house bore the reputation of a bawdyhouse.
5.—Same—Evidence—Bawdyhouse—Acts of Defendant.
That defendant made no denial that her house was a bawdyhouse, when so informed by the health officer, was admissible against her, following LaGrone v. State, 61 Texas Grim. Rep., 170, and other cases.
6.—Same—Defendant as a Witness—Cross-Examination.
Upon trial of keeping a house of prostitution, there was no error in asking the defendant upon cross-examination if she did not know that men came to her house for the purpose of staying with women, etc.
7.—Same—Sufficiency of the Evidence.
Where, upon trial of keeping a house of prostitution, the evidence sustained the conviction, there was no reversible error.
Appeal from the Criminal District Court of Bowie. Tried below before the Honorable P. A. Turner.
Appeal from a conviction of keeping a house of prostitution; penalty, a fine of $200, and twenty days in jail.
The opinion states the case.
Hamiter & Dickson, for appellant.
R. G. Storey, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, Judge.
—Appellant was convicted in the Criminal District Court of Bowie County of the offense of keeping a house of prostitution, and her punishment fixed at a fine of $200 and twenty days in the county jail.
The State moves to dismiss the appeal for two reasons, one because of a defective caption, and the other because of a defective recognizance. The ground upon which the State bases its contention that the recognizance herein is defective is that in reciting the court before which the appellant should make her appearance from day to day and term to term, the recognizance uses the language "this court." It is contended that the recognizance should name the court before which appellant was bound to appear. This was the rule prior to the adoption of Articles 903 and 919, Vernon's C. C. P. In each of said named articles, however, the Legislature has seen fit to lay down the exact form for a recognizance upon appeal in felony and misdemeanor "cases respectively. An examination of the form of recognizance required by Article 919 in cases of misdemeanor, reveals the fact that it is in the exact language of the recognizance appearing in the record in the instant case. An examination of the authorities cited by the State in its motion discloses that they are cases in which the punishment affixed by the judgment, is not named in the recognizance. • We would not feel ourselves justified in adding to the requirements of a recognizance which is expressly made sufficient by legislative enactment.
The other ground of the State's motion to dismiss appears to be well taken. We are not informed by the caption of the transcript herein as to the length of the trial term of the court below, nor of the ending of said term, and hence it is impossible to decide whether the statement of facts and bills of exception appearing in the record, are filed within the time required by law. Because of the lack of definiteness of said caption same is insufficient, and motion of the State as based on this ground will be granted and the appeal will be dismissed.
Dismissed.