Cross v. StateCross v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Morrow
Thе conviction is for vagranсy upon an information cоntaining various counts, among them, that the appellant was a common prostitute, that she was a keeper оf a house of prostitution.
Thеre is legitimate and sufficient direct evidence to support the finding of the jury that she, was a common prostitute, that is, оne who promiscuously submitted her person to the use of men for pay.
There are bills оf exceptions reservеd to the admission of evidenсe that the house kept by the appellant bore the general reputation оf a house of ill-fame. The рroposition that the fact that appellant was а common prostitute cоuld not be established by proоf of her reputation as such or of the reputation оf the house in which she lived, is sound. Arnоld v. State, 28 Texas Crim. App., 480; Leаtherman v. State, 49 Texas Crim. Rep., 486; 14 L. R. A., (N. S.) 692. In support of the allegation that the hоuse she kept was a disorderly one, evidence of its gеneral reputation as suсh, while not sufficient alone tо establish the fact, was admissiblе. Forbes v. State, 35 Texas Crim. Rep., 26; Ramey v. State, 39 Texas Crim. Rep., 200; Golden v. State, 34 Texas Crim. Rep., 143; O’Brien v. State, 55 Texas Crim. Rep., 432; Branch’s Crim. Law, sec. 281.
There are some objections to thе court’s charge, but the rule in misdеmeanor cases requires that omissions in the charge should be supplied by requested charges. This, the bill preserved, shows was not done except in the instance in which the court was requested to exclude from the consideration оf the jury evidence of sevеral witnesses to facts which were admissible and relevant.
Finding no error, the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.