*1 lant testified in his own behalf and denied that he induced Era go to said hotel purpose engaging for the in immoral acts illicit, sexual intercourse with men and denied that he had promised ever marry her. State relied testimony Bryan alone of Era negro
and that porter at the Adams hotel for a convic Bryan negro tion. Era porter accomplices, and the as many held, this court has required times and the State was corroborate their by tending facts or circumstances to connect charged, with the offense any accomplices absence of corroboration the conviction cannot stand. seriously contends that the testi mony wholly insufficient to warrant a conviction. We have carefully read the any statement of facts fail fact to find accomplice or circumstance which tends to corroborate the wit Rep., Kelley nesses. See Muse v. Texas Crim. State, 107 254. We are therefore constrained to hold that the evidence is insufficient to warrant the convic tion. disposition it is we have of this case made
unnecessary any complained to discuss other of. matters By justify insufficiency reason of the of the evidence to conviction, and the of the trial court is reversed cause remanded.
Reversed and remanded. foregoing opinion Appeals of the Commission of Judges Appeals been examined Court of Criminal approved by the Court. Rathert Grace 28, 1934.
No. 16522. Delivered March May 16, Appeal Reinstated Rehearing Denied June *2 The states the case. Watts, Abilene, appellant.
John J. of for Austin, Lloyd the W.,Davidson, Attorney, of for State’s MORROW, place Presiding Judge. Keeping a to store intoxicating offense; liquor penalty at confine- the assessed is penitentiary year. in for ment the one ap- it appeal for reason that
The cannot be considered the pears comply that on bail the bail fails to is and bond statutory only requirement the the it contain not with signature judge Art. the of the
of also sheriff. See P., 1925; State, v. Franks C. C. also Leal 17 S. W. present instance, the bond v. In the signature fails to contain the sheriff. of has, motion, requested attorney dismissal State’s appeal condition of the for the reason stated. record, motion must be sustained. appeal is dismissed.
Dismissed. TO ON MOTION REINSTATE APPEAL. Judge. appeal LATTIMORE, for which this defect —The re-instated, dismissed, appeal has remedied.
was been and case considered on its merits.
Appellant testify evidence contradic- introduce did not tory her house in witnesses who searched that of State they April 11, 1933, this trial on Abilene on and affirmed was possession of beer which found intoxicating, her about bottles being at such also that beer was sold evidences supported officers place, by her admission to said which fact is selling that she such beer. was complaint exceptions, is of
There is but one bill what was the fact the trial court admitted evidence of upon had under search house of found
warrant issued an out, affidavit which set a suffic —after description ient house, of the posses said was in house —that sion and control persons of a “Person or whose name and further identity are unknown affiants.” Appellant objected because descrip neither the name nor the tion Appellant occupant of such in control in the affidavit. upon Tillery States, cites and relies v. 114 Texas Rep., 106, Crim. point. 844. This case not in In Naulls v. upheld 115 Texas Crim. admission result a search had under a warrant based substantially on an affidavit same as the appears. affidavit which here in the Naulls case approved. Denzlinger been See Crim. Texas Hoppe 55 S. W. *3 appearing, No error will be affirmed.
Affirmed. ON MOTION FOR REHEARING HAWKINS, Judge. Appellant renews his contention the affidavit which the search warrant insuf issued was naming describing premises party ficient not or whose were to searched. It was in the affidavit be stated property name of the in control of the was unknown identity” the affiants and that “further support affidavit was unknown. our good following cite additional Anderson v. authorities. 114 Texas Crim. S. W. Elms Northam S. W.
Appellant misapprehends Hoppe v. if the affi- in said case that It stated in a property to be searched had disclosed that davit. insufficient. private have been residence the affidavit would as to the name the averment reference to This had no statement searched, party premises were be description of the the absence property, description of nor to the private resi- necessary averments which are where sought. dence is rehearing overruled.
The motion for
Overruled.