
    WEIR v. STATE.
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Dec. 20, 1911.)
    Disorderly House (§ 2) — Repeal op Statute.
    Acts 1907, c. 132, defining disorderly and bawdy houses, and prescribing the penalty for keeping such houses in violation of the act, was not repealed by Vagrancy Act 1909, c. 59, punishing as vagrants, among others, every common prostitute and every keeper of a house of prostitution, etc., and repealing all conflicting laws.
    [Ed.. Note. — For other cases, see Disorderly House, Dec. Dig. § 2.]
    Davidson, P. J., dissenting.
    Appeal from Dallas County Court, at Law; W. E. Whitehurst, Judge.
    Lizzie Weir was convicted of unlawfully keeping a house of prostitution, and she appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Wiley & Baskett, for appellant. R. M. Clark, Co. Atty., Currie McCutcheon, Asst. Co. Atty., and C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
    
      
       For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dee. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep’r Indexes
    
   PRENDERGAST, J.

The appellant was charged with unlawfully and directly keeping and being concerned in keeping a certain house situated in Dallas county where prostitutes were permitted to resort and reside for the purpose of plying their vocation, and as a house kept for the purpose of prostitution. She was found guilty, and her punishment fixed at a fine of $200 and 20 days in jail.

The statement of facts and bills of exceptions were filed nearly 90 days after the adjournment of the court. The state objects to the consideration therefore of any of these. The appellant in his brief concedes in effect that this is correct under the decisions of this court, and that the only question he can raise, and does raise by his brief, is that he claims that this act of the Legislature of 1907 (page 240), defining disorderly and bawdy houses and prescribing a penalty for the violation thereof, under which this conviction was had, was repealed by Vagrancy Act 1909, p. 111. This was held adversely to the appellant’s contention in the case of Parshall v. State, 138 S. W. 759. We deem it unnecessary to again take up and discuss the question as that was done in said Parshall Case.

There being no error pointed out, the judgment will be affirmed.

DAVIDSON, P. J., dissents.  