
    LIMANTIA v. STATE.
    (No. 4791.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Dec. 21, 1917.)
    Indictment and Information @=>110(11) — Following Language of Statute — Disorderly House.
    A complaint and information charging the keeping of a disorderly house, where spirituous liquors were kept for sale, and prostitutes, lewd women, or. women of bad reputation were employed or kept in service, etc., was sufficient, where it followed the language of the statute (Pen. Code 1911, arts. 496 and 500) though it did not allege the names of such women, or give any other description of them.
    Appeal from El Paso County Court, at Law; Will B. Brady, Judge.
    A. Limantia was convicted of keeping a disorderly house, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    E. B. Hendricks, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PRENDERGAST, J.

Appellant was convicted for keeping a disorderly house, and the punishment prescribed by law was assessed. The complaint and information were in several counts. He was convicted under one of them only. It is unnecessary, therefore, to mention any of the others. He was convicted under that clause of articles 496 and 500, Pen. Code, which makes it an offense to keep a disorderly house where spirituous liquors are kept for sale, and prostitutes, lewd women, or women of bad reputation for chastity are employed, kept in service, etc. Appellant contends that this count in the information was insufficient, in that it did not allege the names or give any description of the women who were prostitutes, etc. The information follows the form therefor laid down by Mr. Branch in section 1066, 1 Branch’s An. P. O., and the language of the statute.

It has all the time been held that it is unnecessary, in prosecutions of this character, to give the name of the house, or describe the lot on which it is located, or identify its location, further than to allege that it is situated in the county. 1 Branch’s An. P. C. § 1067; Lowe v. State, 4 Tex. App. 34; Sprague v. State, 44 S. W. 837; Schulze v. State, 56 S. W. 918; Wilson v. State, 61 Tex. Cr. R. 628, 136 S. W. 447; Farrell v. State. 64 Tex. Cr. R. 200, 141 S. W. 535; Orth v. State, 72 Tex. Cr. 278, 161 S. W. 1199, and other authorities. These cases are in point by analogy. It was unnecessary to allege the names or give any other description other or further than to allege that they were prostitutes, etc.

There is no statement of facts or bill of exceptions in the record, and nothing else raised which can be reviewed in the absence of these.

The judgment is affirmed,  