
    AUSTIN v. STATE.
    (No. 6664.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Nov. 15, 1922.)
    Disorderly house <&wkey;>12 — Indictment, alleging defendant “kept and was concerned” In keeping it, insufficient.
    Under Pen. Code 1911, art. 500, providing that the person who owns, leases, occupies, or controls a bawdyhouse, or who acts as the agent of such person, imay be prosecuted, an indictment alleging that defendant “kept and was concerned” in keeping it did not charge an offense.
    Appeal from Wichita County Court, at Law; Edgar Scurry, Special.Judge.
    P. T. Austin was convicted of keeping a bawdyhouse, and he appeals.
    Reversed, and prosecution dismissed.
    Davenport & Thornton, of Wichita Falls, for appellant.
    R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   HAWKINS, J.

Appellant was convicted for keeping a bawdyhouse.

The information nowhere alleges that appellant “owned,” “leased,” “occupied,” or “controlled” the house. It simply alleges that he “kept and was concerned” in keeping it. The information would have been good under the old law. Killman v. State, 2 Tex. App. 222, 28 Am. Rep. 432; Lowe v. State, 4 Tex. App. 34. But such is not the ease under present article 500, P. C.; Lamar v. State, 30 Tex. App. 693, 18 S. W. 788; Mitchell v. State, 34 Tex. Cr. R. 311, 30 S. W. 810. Under the amendment of 1889 (Laws 1889, p. 33), only the “owner, lessee or tenant” was liable to such prosecution. Under the amendment of 1907 (page 246, Acts Legislature), the person who owns, leases, occupies, or controls the house, or who acts as the agent of such person, may be prosecuted. No offense is charged under the present information.

The judgment is reversed, and the prosecution ordered dismissed. 
      <£=»For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     