
    DAVIS v. STATE.
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    April 3, 1912.)
    Indictment and Information (§ 119) — Surplusage.
    Pen. Code 1911, art. 500, provides that any person who shall, directly or as agent for another, keep or assist in keeping a disorderly house in a building owned or controlled by him, directly or as agent for another, shall be guilty of keeping a disorderly house. The complaint and information in a prosecution for keeping a •disorderly house charged that the house was kept by defendant directly and indirectly. Held, that, as the rest of the information followed the statute, the words “and indirectly” are surplus-age, not affecting the validity of the information.
    [Ed. Note. — For other eases, see Indictment ■and Information, Cent. Dig. §§ 311-314; Dec. Dig.1 119.]
    Appeal from Dallas County Court, at Law; W. F. Whitehurst, Judge.
    Jim Davis was convicted of keeping a disorderly house, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
    
      
      For other oases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep’r Indexes
    
   PRENDERGAST, J.

Appellant was convicted, and given the lowest penalty, for keeping a disorderly house.

Under our statute (P. C. art. 496) a disorderly house, among other things, is defined as any house to which persons resort for the purpose of smoking, or in any manner using opium. Article 500, P. C., is: “Any person who shall, directly or as agent for another, or through any agent, keep or be concerned in keeping, or aid, or assist or abet in keeping, * * * a disorderly house in any house, building, edifice, or tenement, or shall knowingly permit the keeping of a * * * disorderly house in any house, building, edifice or tenement owned, leased, occupied, or controlled by him, directly [or] as ag.ent for another, or through any agent, shall be deemed guilty,” etc. The complaint and information in this case strictly follow these statutes in charging the offense, except that in the last part it charged that the house was occupied, etc., by the said appellant “directly and indirectly.” A motion was made to quash the complaint and information, because-of the use of the last two words just above quoted, “and indirectly.” No other objection is made to the complaint and information.

Without these latter words, which appellant complains of, the complaint and information are unquestionably complete, and charge an offense under the statute above noted. These last two words may, under all the authorities, be considered as surplusage, and do not affect the remainder of the complaint and information. See cases cited under .section 382, p. 285, of White’s G. G. P. The charge of the court limited the finding of the jury to the occupancy, etc., by the appellant “directly,” and did not submit to them any “indirect” occupancy, etc. It is therefore unnecessary for us to determine whether the charge in the complaint and information that the appellant occupied, etc., “indirectly,” would take the place of and supply the language of the statute above quoted, to the effect, “as agent for another, or through any agent.”

There is no statement of facts in the ease, and therefore this court cannot pass upon any of the other questions attempted to be raised by the motion for a new trial.

The judgment will therefore be affirmed.  