Case Name: Dan Layton v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1911-02-08
Citations: 61 Tex. Crim. 507
Docket Number: No. 904
Parties: Dan Layton v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 61
Pages: 507–509

Head Matter:
Dan Layton v. The State.
No. 904.
Decided February 8, 1911.
Rehearing Granted March 8, 1911.
1. —Unlawful Sale of Intoxicating liquors—Keeping Disorderly House—Recognizance—Reinstatement of Appeal.
Where the appeal was dismissed because of an insufficient recognizance, and appellant thereafter on motion to reinstate filed a recognizance in accordance with the law,' the appeal will be reinstated.
2. —Same—Indictment—Sale of Spirituous, Vinous and Malt liquors.
Where the indictment followed precedent in charging defendant with keeping a disorderly house in which spiritous, vinous and malt liquors were sold and kept for sale, the same was sufficient. Following Wimberly v. State, 53 Texas Grim. Rep., 11, and other cases.
3. —Same—Evidence—Practice on Appeal.
Where the exception to the evidence related to a count in the indictment under which defendant had. been acquitted and not to the case on trial, it need not be considered on appeal.
4. —Same—General and local law—Charge of Court.
The law with reference to keeping a disorderly house, by the sale or keeping for sale spirituous, vinous and malt liquors, is of a general character and applies to the entire State, and there was no error in the court’s failure to charge the jury that the disorderly house statute did not apply to the county of the prosecution.
5. —Same—Evidence—Sales of Intoxicating liquors.
Where, upon trial of unlawfully keeping a disorderly house for the sale, etc., of spirituous, etc., liquors, the court admitted in evidence sales of intoxicating liquors by parties who were not employed by the defendant and who had no business connection with him, the same was reversible error.
G.—Same—Evidence—leading Questions.
Upon trial for keeping a disorderly house for the sale of spirituous liquors, etc., there was no error in permitting the State to propound leading question to its witnesses who were hostile to the State.
7.—Same—Insufficiency of the Evidence.
Where, upon trial of keeping a disorderly house, by the sale, etc of spirituous, etc., liquors, the State. failed to prove that defendant was the owner, lessee or occupant of the building or that he was in control of same, and the defendant showing that he had no connection therewith otherwise than as waiter or clerk, the conviction could not be sustained; although he might have been prosecuted for the illegal sale of such liquors but not as a keeper of a disorderly house.
Appeal from the County Court of Ellis. Tried helow before the Hon. J. T. Spencer.
Appeal from a conviction of keeping disorderly house for the sale, etc., of spirituous, etc., liquors without license; penalty, a fine of $200 and twenty days confinement in the county jail.
The opinion states the case.
T. H. Collier and Farrar & McRae, for appellant.
—On the ques tion of the insufficiency of the indictment: Scales v. State, 46 Texas Crim. Rep., 296; Act of 30th Legislature, page 247.
C. E. Lane, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.
—Cited cases in opinion.

Opinion:
HARPER, Judge.
—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 jurisdiction. An inspection of the recognizance discloses that the motion is well taken. See Bird v. State, Switzer v. State, and Hardin v. State, this day decided. The motion is sustained, and the appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Dismissed.