
    BROWN v. STATE.
    (No. 8498.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Nov. 19, 1924.)
    Miscegenation &wkey;>5 — Proof that parties were of different races held essential.
    In prosecution under City of Houston’s Ordinance, § 1583b, forbidding persons of white and negro races to cohabit with each other proof that parties were of different races was essential.
    Appeal from Harris County Court; Roy E. Campbell, Judge.
    R. Brown was convicted under ordinance forbidding persons of white and negro race's to cohabit with each other, and he appeals.
    Reversed and remanded.
    Ered R. Switzer, of Houston, for appellant.
    Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.
   MORROW, P. J.

The prosecution is based upon section 1583b of the ordinance of the city of Houston, which forbids persons of the white and negro races to cohabit with each other.

The case was tried before the court without a jury, and the sufficiency of the evidence is assailed upon the ground that there is an absence of proof that one of the parties was of the white, and the other of the negro, race. Appellant insists that the statement of facts is silent upon the subject of the races of the parties. In the brief of the state, this is not controverted, and in-our examination of the statement of facts-we fail to find any evidence upon the subject. The necessity of such proof is obvious. In the absence thereof, the judgment must be reversed, and the cause remanded.

Such is the order. 
      ©ssPor tether cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     