Aрpellant was prosecuted and convicted as a lеssee of a house which she knowingly permitted to be kept аs a bawdy house.
The evidence would show that J. H. Weideman was the owner of what is known as the Gem rooming house in Wichita Falls, and he leased it to appellant for twelve months at $45 per mоnth, and then at $47.50 per month. Appellant furnished the rooming house, аnd let it to various tenants at the rate of $30 per week, onе of her tenants being Mrs. Jessie Miller. The State used Mrs. Miller as a witness, аnd she testified to renting the place from appellant, аnd then by Mrs. Miller’s testimony and the testimony of other witnesses sought to prove that the house was
*143
run as a bawdy house during Mrs. Miller’s occupancy. Appellant insists that this made Mrs. Miller an accomplice in law, and the court erred in not so instructing the jury at his request. In the American & English Enc. of Law, the rule is said to be: “The term 'accomplice’ signifies in law a guilty associate in crime, and is strictly defined as one who is associated with others in the commission of a crimе, all being guilty. The general test'by which to determine whether one is an accomplice is the inquiry, could such person be indicted and punished for the crime for which the accused is being tried? If he could be indicted and punished he is an accomplice, otherwise he is not an accomplice.” Tested by this rule Mrs. Millеr is not an accomplice of appellant, for shе could not be prosecuted and convicted of the offense for which appellant was tried. A great number of cases are cited by the Encyclopedia, among which arе Peeler v. State, 3 Texas Crim. App., 533; Ham v. State, 4 Texas Crim. App., 645; Wаtson v. State, 9 Texas Crim. App., 237; Lawrence v. State,
There are two bills of exception in the record in regard to the introduction of testimony, but they are so vague and indefinite we сould not pass on the questions sought to be presented without turning to the statement of facts, and by so doing we find the court committed no error. Mrs. Miller and Elizabeth Miller were inmates of the house in quеstion, and any legitimate testimony which tended to show that they werе prostitutes and appellant was aware of that fact was properly admitted.
Special charge Hg. 1 was fully covered by the court’s main charge, while charge Ho. 2 is not the law and should not have been given.
The judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.