Bennett v. State (78 Tex. Crim. 231, 1915)

HARPER, Judge.

No brief was filed by appellant m tnis canse, and, as the numerous questions presented in the record are so fairly and ably discussed in the brief filed in behalf of the State, we have adopted the brief as the opinion of the court. It is as follows:

“Appellant was convicted under the Act of February 23, 1911, which is found on page 23 of the Acts of the Thirty-second Legislature, and his punishment assessed at the lowest penalty, a fine of $50 and thirty days imprisonment in the county jail.

“It is perhaps unnecessary to quote all of said Act; but the part applicable to this ease is:

“‘Sec. 1. If any person, whether the owner, . . . proprietor,, . . . or any other person shall . . . permit to be drunk,, any . . . malt liquors, whether capable of producing intoxication or not, in any . . . disorderly house . . . shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction such person or persons shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of not less than thirty days nor more than ninety days, and by a fine of not less than fifty nor more than five hundred dollars/

“‘Sec. 2. A disorderly house is . . . any . . . place where . . . lewd women or women of bad reputation for chastity are . . . permitted to resort/

“The information alleges that in Harris County, Texas, the appellant did on the 27th day of June, 1915, permit malt liquor, towit, beer, to be drunk by Clyde Cawthon, and by Bud Dreyling, and by several other named persons, in a disorderly house there situate, and then and there under the care, control and management of the appellant, the said house being then and there a place where lewd women and women of bad reputation for chastity were then and there permitted to resort.

“No objection was made to the information, and it is sufficient to* allege a violation of that phase of the statute already quoted.

“Under a very fair and full charge of the court, to which no exceptions were taken, the court submitted the allegations of the information, to the jury, limiting the State’s case to whether malt liquor, towit, beer,, was permitted to be drunk by Cawthon or Dreyling in the kind of disorderly house alleged, and the defensive theory was affirmatively submitted to the jury.

“T. The date of the ofíense was laid generally in the information and in a prosecution of this kind, when the time is not carved out, the State is not bound by the date alleged, but may prove any date prior to the presentment of the information which is within the period of limitation. Novy v. State, 62 Texas Crim. Rep., 492, 138 S. W. Rep., 139.

“The State’s witnesses Cawthon and Dreyling each testified that they had bought and drnnk beer at appellant’s place on and before the date alleged, and there was no controversy on this phase of the offense.

“On the other phase of the offense, that is, whetner the place of appellant was a disorderly house as alleged, the State’s testimony is sufficient, if believed, to. support the finding of the jury. A large number of witnesses testified that the general reputation of appellant’s place, which was known as ‘Eureka Pines,’ for being a place where lewd women and women of bad reputation for chastity were permitted to resort, was bad. In addition to this, women of that kind, as shown without controversy, testified to going to the place, and witnesses also testified to seeing inmates of the reservation — the restricted district in the City of Houston, where common prostitutes live — at appellant’s place, and there was testimony that such women were permitted to dance there in the enclosure around appellant’s resort. The enclosure •also included several small ‘summer houses/ In fact, the State’s evidence was sufficient to show that the place was what is known as a road house frequented by all sorts and conditions of people. One of appellant’s own witnesses, Hill Hinsley, in answer to appellant’s query as to the reputation of the place, testified that it was ‘as good as a place -of that sort eould be run,’ and on cross-examination testified to himself seeing a number of lewd women there.

“The mischief intended to be remedied by the statute is the permitting persons to drink strong liquors at places where lewd women are permitted to resort, and it is no't necessary to a conviction that it be proven that such women were actually bodily present when the liquors were permitted to be drunk by the persons alleged.

“Appellant’s theory was that he did not know that any woman of the character alleged came to his place and that when any misbehaved he made them leave. The conflict in the testimony was, of course, a matter for the jury.

“2. The case was tried before Hon. James Snowball, who, on July 16th, a month before this case was tried, was elected special judge, the regular judge being absent. The minutes of the court showing the election of Judge Snowball and the fact that he took the oath of office is shown by the record in this «ase, and as appellant went to trial without objection, it will be conclusively presumed on appeal on a collateral attack that the special1 judge was qualified to act as such. In the motion for new trial appellant sets up for the first time that the special judge was not an attorney, and,'therefore, could not be legally elected, but this contention is in no way verified by bill of exceptions or otherwise, and can not be considered. If the trial judge was not a lawyer, and if it'be conceded that he was not, on that account, qualified, yet ihe ease proceeded to trial without objection, and he became a de facto judge exercising the duties of his office, and it is well settled that the right of a de facto judge to hold his office is not subject to attack in a •collateral proceeding, nor will his right to hold the office be inquired into even in a habeas corpus proceeding brought to secure the release of a party convicted on a trial before him. Ex parte Call, Jr., 2 Texas Crim. App., 497. An officer de facto is a person who is such by color of election, though ineligible. Ex parte Call, Jr., supra.

“The record of the election of Judge Snowball shows that out of eighty-four votes cast by the lawyers present, among whom were appellant’s counsel, he received eighty votes.

“3. Bill of exceptions No. 1 complains that the district attorney in argument to the jury commented on the fact that appellant’s counsel objected to the wife of appellant being asked whether appellant cared whether prostitutes came out to his place or not. Enough is not set out tn the bill to show the surrounding facts, but it appears that she had already in effect testified that it was only when there was bad behavior that any women were asked to leave and that so long as they behayed themselves they were not bothered in appellant’s place. For all that appears from the bill the question was legitimate, at least the bill fads to show why appellant objected to the question/ and it is well settled that the State may comment on the failure of an accused to explain criminative facts proven against him by his wife or upon any omissions in her testimony which were legitimate to be proven. Locklin v. State, 75 S. W. Rep., 305. We think, taken as a whole, the bill fails to show any reason why the judgment should be reversed, because it does not appear that any injury was or could have been caused thereby. At most the remark was but a deduction from the testimony and cir-eumritances of the case and any intelligent jury would know whát weight to give it.

“4. Bill No. 2 complains that after appellant’s counsel had said two oi three times, T want my bill,' that State’s counsel said to him,