Case Name: LAYTON v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1911-02-08
Citations: 135 S.W. 557
Docket Number: 
Parties: LAYTON v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 135
Pages: 557–558

Head Matter:
LAYTON v. STATE.
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Feb. 8, 1911.
On Rehearing, March 8, 1911.)
1. Intoxicating Liquors (§ 40*) — Application of Disorderly House Statute — Effect of Local Option.
The disorderly house statute is a general law, and applies to all parts of the state, whether local option is in force or not.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Intoxicating Liquors, Dec. Dig. § 40.*]
2. Disorderly House (§ 16*) — Evidence — Admissibility.
In a prosecution for keeping a disorderly house, in that intoxicating liquors were illegally sold and kept for sale therein, there was error in admitting evidence of sales to and purchases by persons who were not shown to be employfis of or connected in business with defendant.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Disorderly House, Dec. Dig. § 16.*] -
3. Witnesses (§ 244*) — Examination—Leading Questions.
There was no error in permitting leading questions to be asked witnesses for the state, who gave testimony favorable to defendant at variance with their statements in the grand jury room.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Witnesses, Cent. Dig. §§ 795, 848; Dec. Dig. § 244.*] .
4. Witnesses (§ 393*) — Impeachment—Proof of Former Testimony.
W’here witnesses for the state proved on the trial to be witnesses favorable to defendant, it was not error to permit the state to prove by them what they had formerly testified before the grand jury.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Witnesses, Cent. Dig. §§ 1252-1257; Dec. Dig. § 393.*]
5. Disorderly PIouse (§ 17*) — Evidence— Sufficiency.
Evidence held insufficient to show that defendant was the keeper of a disorderly house.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Disorderly House, Cent. Dig. §§ 26-29; Dec. Dig. § 17.*]
Appeal from Ellis County Court; J. T. Spencer, Judge.
Dan Layton was convicted of keeping a disorderly house, and he appeals.
Reversed.
T. H. Collier and Farrar & McRae, for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
HARPER, J.
Motion.is made by the Assistant Attorney General to dismiss the appeal herein, on the ground that the recognizance is not sufficient to give, this court ju risdiction.' An inspection of tlie recognizance discloses that the motion is well taken. See Bird v. State, 134 S. W. 687, Switzer v. State, 134 S. W. 705, and Harden v. State (this day decided) 130 S. W. -.
The motion is sustained, and the appeal is accordingly dismissed.