
    SNIDER v. STATE.
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    April 2, 1913.)
    Criminal Law . (§ 519*)—Evidence—State-ments by Accused to Officers—Admissibility.
    Where nothing was said by officers to accused when he made a statement to them which would cause him to think that he was likely to be arrested, the officers could testify to the statement, though they admitted on cross-examination that they would not have permitted accused to leave if he had tried to, and that, after obtaining the statement, they watched him for a time and saw him commit an offense and then arrested him.
    [Ed. Note.—For other cases, Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 1163-1174; 519.*] see Criminal Dec. Dig. §
    Appeal from Dallas County Court, at Law; W. F. Whitehurst, Judge.
    Jim Snider was convicted of keeping a disorderly house, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Ed Sewell, of Dallas, for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   HARPER, J.

Appellant was prosecuted under article 496 of the Penal Code, charged with keeping a disorderly house, in that he did keep, and was concerned in' keeping, a house in which spirituous, vinous, and malt liquors were sold and. kept for sale without first having obtained a license under the law of this state to retail such liquors. Appellant filed a motion to quash the information and complaint, but as the grounds relied on by appellant were passed on adversely to his contention in the cases of Tachini v. State, 59 Tex. Cr. R. 55, 126 S. W. 1139, and Joliff v. State, 53 Tex. Cr. R. 61, 109 S. W. 176, we do not deem it necessary to discuss them again.

It appears that the officers went to the place where the intoxicating liquors were being sold and had a conversation with appellant in which he told them he was manager of the place. On cross-examination it developed that these officers would not have let appellant leave if he had tried, and that after having this conversation with appellant, and they watched and saw the liquors being sold to men and women, they arrested him and carried him to jail. Appellant moved the court to strike out the conversation of appellant with the officers as he was under arrest. Nothing had been said to appellant at the time that would indicate to him or cause him to suspicion that he was likely to be arrested, therefore the court did not err in refusing to exclude this testimony. Williams v. State, 53 Tex. Cr. R. 2, 108 S. W. 371; Hart v. State, 15 Tex. App. 202, 49 Am. Rep. 188; Martin v. State, 57 Tex. Cr. R. 266, 122 S. W. 558. The only other contention of appellant in his brief is that the testimony does not clearly and unequivocally show that the offense was committed prior to the filing of the complaint in this cause. When we read the testimony, we think it is manifest that the acts testified to by the witnesses were shown to have taken place prior to the arrest of defendant and the filing of the complaint in this cause.

The judgment is affirmed.  