
    DAVIS v. STATE.
    (No. 4027.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    March 29, 1916.)
    1. Disorderly House &wkey;>16 — Admissibility of Evidence — Refutation.
    In a prosecution for aiding the keeping of a house of prostitution, testimony of a witness that the house had had a reputation as such for a long time before and after defendant began working there is admissible, though the witness could not limit his knowledge as to the reputation to the time after the defendant began working there.
    [Ed. Note. — For other eases, see Disorderly House, Cent. Dig. §§ 21-25; Dec. Dig. <§= 16.]
    2.Disorderly House <©=317 — Sufficiency of Evidence.
    In a prosecution for aiding in keeping a house of prostitution, evidence held sufficient to sustain a conviction.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Disorderly House, Cent. Dig. §§ 26-29; Dec. Dig. <©=17.]
    Appeal from Wichita County Court; Harvey Harris, Judge.
    E. C. Davis was convicted of aiding the keeping of a house of prostitution, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Ralph P. Mathis and W. Lindsay Bibb, both of Wichita Falls, for appellant. C. C. McDonald, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   HARPER, J.

Appellant was convicted under an information charging him with aiding, assisting, and abetting the keeping of a house of prostitution and a house where prostitutes were permitted to resort and reside.

Appellant objected to Ed Carnes being permitted to testify that the house with which he was charged with aiding and abetting the keeping had the reputation of being a disorderly house at the time he was acting as night clerk of the Royal hotel, and had that reputation before appellant began working there. The objection was directed at that portion of the testimony in which he said:

“I could not limit my knowledge of the reputation of this house as just since the defendant began working. It has been disorderly for a long time.”

As the testimony shows the reputation of the house was disorderly when appellant began working there, and so continued all the time he was connected with it, the bill presents no reversible error. •

The court did not err in refusing to give peremptory instructions to acquit, as we think the testimony would justify a conviction. The reputation of the house was shown to be a house where prostitutes resorted and resided. Harrold Buster testified that the reputation of the three women he saw at this hotel was bad; that they were common prostitutes; that he had seen at least one of them in the reservation at Lillian Hall’s. Lewis Scott testified he was porter at the Royal Hotel, and that appellant told him, “if I found any one that wanted a woman up there, to send them to him.” Ed Carnes testified that he secured a room at this hotel, and said to the porter, Lewis Scott, that he was going down to the reservation to see the girls, when the porter replied, “Boss,,we have got any kind of girls you want at the hotel.” The porter took him to his room, and in tfbout 20 minutes a girl opened the door and came in.

The judgment is affirmed. 
      ÉrojFor other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     