
    The State, Appellant, v. Bregard.
    1. Pleading, Criminal: keeping bawdy house. An indictment for keeping a bawdy house is well enough if it follows the language of the statute.
    2. -. Where a statute uses disjunctive language in defining an offense, an indictment under it may be drawn in the conjunctive.
    
      Appeal from. Jackson Criminal Court.—Hon. H. P. White, Judge.
    Reversed.
    
      D. H. McIntyre, Attorney General, for the State
    
      Tichenor & Warner for respondent.
   Sherwood, J.

The indictment charged that defendant on, etc., at, etc., “ did unlawfully set up and keep a common bawdy house.” The indictment is well enough, since it follows the language of the statute on which it is bottomed. R. S. 1879, p. 270, § 1550.

The only particular in which the precise language of the statute is not followed, is in the substitution of the word and for the word or; but this is proper as recently decided by this court. State v. Pittman, ante, p. 56. The authorities cited by the State fully sustain the validity of the indictment. Therefore, judgment reversed and cause remanded.

All concur.  