
    DAVENPORT v. STATE.
    (No. 8199.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Oct. 15, 1924.)
    Criminal law <@=>804(1) — Court’s refusal to give written instructions in misdemeanor case held to necessitate reversal.
    In prosecution for misdemeanor, court’s action in verbally instructing jury over defendant’s objection, and in refusing to instruct them in writing, held to require reversal, in view of Code Cr. Proc. arts. 739, 740.
    •Appeal from Corporation Court of Port Arthur; A. W. Dycus, Judge.
    Evelyn Davenport was convicted of keeping a bawdy house, and she appeals.
    Reversed and remanded.
    Howth & O’Fiel, of Beaumont, Rose & Johnson, of Port Arthur, and Lamar Hart, of Beaumont, for appellant.
    Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.
   MORROW, P. J.

The conviction is for keeping a bawdy house, a misdemeanor; punishment fixed at a fine of $200.

The court, over the objection of the appellant gave verbal instructions to the jury concerning the law of the case. Appellant prepared written instructions, which the court refused, and reserved bills of exception to the action, of the court in verbally instructing the jury and in refusing to instruct them in writing. The statute, articles 739 and 740, C. C. P., require that, when the court gives instructions to the jury, they must be in writing save in a misdemeanor ease, when, by consent of the parties, a verbal charge may be given. The refusal to observe this statutory provision, when properly presented for review, has uniformly been held to require a reversal of the judgment. See Melton v. State, 12 Tex. App. 488; Riley v. State, 92 Tex. Cr. R. 237, 243 S. W. 467.

For the reason pointed out, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded. 
      ©=oEor other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     