63 So. 390 | La. | 1913
Lead Opinion
Defendant was convicted, under Act No. 226, of 1912, of being a male person, without visible means of support, who is feloniously living with a prostitute, and was sentenced to imprisonment for six months. He has made no appearancé in this court, in person or by counsel, and the only bill of exception that we find in the transcript is one reading, in part, as follows:
“Be it remembered that * * * the defendant * * * filed a motion for new trial *. * * on the ground that the verdict of the jury * * * was contrary to the law and the evidence, in that the state failed to'prove that the party with whom the defendant was alleged to have lived was a prostitute, at and during the time that defendant is alleged to have lived with her.”
Rehearing
On Rehearing.
The defendant was indicted under Act No. 226 of 1912, entitled “An act to define and punish vagrancy and providing penalties for the violation thereon.”
As stated in our previous opinion, the only bill of exception found in the record is one to the overruling of defendant’s motion for a new trial. The only basis for such motion was an allegation:
“That the state failed to prove that the party with whom defendant was alleged to have lived was a prostitute at and during the time that the defendant is alleged to have lived with her.”
It is therefore ordered that our former decree herein be reinstated and made the final judgment'of the court.