
    AYRES v. STATE.
    (No. 7294.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Jan. 31, 1923.
    Appeal Reinstated. Oct. 10, 1923.)
    I.Bail <&wkey;66 — Recognizance on appeal held insufficient.
    Under Code Cr. Proc. 1911; art. 919, a recognizance on appeal, which does not state that accused was convicted of a misdemeanor, nor recite the punishment fixed therein, is insufficient and the appeal may be dismissed.
    On the Merits, after. Reinstating Appeal.
    2. Criminal law <&wkey;>!!82— In absence of exception to oral instructions or apparent error conviction will be sustained if supported by evidence.
    In the absence of any exception to the court’s oral charge or apparent' reversible error a conviction will be sustained if supported by the evidence.
    3. Criminal law <&wkey;>369(l) — Evidence of former 'arrest and plea of guilty inadmissible.
    In a prosecution for vagrancy, evidence that accused had been previously arrested and had pleaded guilty to vagrancy was inadmissible.
    4. Criminal law <&wkey;4!9, 420(3)— Sheriff’s testimony as to complaint' of neighbors inadmissible as hearsay.
    In a prosecution for vagrancy, in that ao cused habitually loitered in and around a house of prostitution, testimony of a sheriff that he had arrested accused because the neighbors complained to him of the character'of the house was inadmissible as hearsay.
    5. Vagrancy <&wkey;3 — Reputation of alleged house of prostitution, about which accused was charged with loitering, admissible.
    In a prosecution for vagrancy in that accused habitually associated with prostitutes and loitered in and about a house of prostitution evidence of the general reputation of the house and of its inmates wag admissible under Vernon’s Ann. Pen. Code 1916, art. 500.
    6. Criminal law <&wkey;449(I) — Opinion of witness as to effect of plea of guilty to vagrancy inadmissible in prosecution thereof.
    In a prosecution for vagrancy, the opinion of a witness that if one had pleaded guilty to vagrancy he would think her a prostitute held inadmissible.
    Appeal from Tom Green County Court; J. T. Mathison, Judge.
    George Ayres was convicted of vagrancy, and be appeals.
    Reversed and remanded.
    W. A. Anderson and Upton & Upton, all of San Angelo, for appellant.
    R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   On Motion to Dismiss.

LATTIMORE, J.

Appellant was convicted in the county court of Tom Green county of vagrancy, and his punishment fixed at a fine of $100.

Our assistant Attorney General moves to dismiss this appeal because of a defective recognizaneé. The motion must be granted. The form for recognizance on appeal to this court appears in article 919 of our Code of Criminal Procedure, and requires not only that it shall be stated that the accused was convicted of a misdemeanor, but also that the punishment fixed be therein stated. An examination of the recognizance in this ease shows it lacking in the elements mentioned.

The motion of the state is granted, and the appeal dismissed.

On the Merits, after Reinstating Appeal.

This appeal was dismissed at the last term of this court because of defective recognizance. A new recognizance has been filed, and the appeal will be reinstated, and the case considered upon its merits.

Appellant was charged by information with vagrancy attributed in the pleading to three causes: First, that he was a male person habitually associated with prostitutes; second, that he habitually loitered in and around a house of prostitution; and third, that he was a person who was able to work, who had no property to support himself, who did not work, and who had no known and visible means of a fair, honest, and reputable livelihood. The court’s charge was verbal, and, no exceptions being shown in the record, is supposed to have been acceptable, and the verdict being general must be upheld, if the evidence sufficiently supports any of the three grounds of vagrancy alleged, unless there be reversible error otherwise appearing.

Bills of exception Nos. 1, 6, and 10 evidence complaint of admission of proof that prior to his arrest in this case appellant had been arrested for, and pleaded guilty to, vagrancy. We know of no legal reason for the admission of such testimony. It tended only to prove that the accused had theretofore committed and been convicted for another offense than the one on trial. Such proof in this case falls within none of the rules allowing 'the introduction of testimony of other offenses. If provable at all, such plea or conviction was of record, and the record evidence should have been presented. Hardeman v. State (Tex. Or. App.) 252 S. W. 503.

The testimony of the sheriff that he went to the house where he arrested appellant, because the neighbors complained to him-of the character of the house, was also inadmissible for any purpose. The statements of the neighbors, or the substance of same, could be but hearsay, and there was no issue involved calling for its admission.

The general reputation of the house as being a house of prostitution, and that of its inmates as being common prostitutes, was admissible under the character of charge laid against appellant. Taylor v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 250 S. W. 175. See, also, authorities cited under article 500, Vernon’s R. C.

The opinion of a witness that, if one had pleaded guilty to vagrancy, he would think her a prostitute, should not have been admitted. Such opinion was competent evidence upon no issue involved, and was admissible for no legal reason so far as we can see.

' For errors above mentioned, the judgment of the trial court will be reversed, and the cause remanded. 
      <£mFor other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     