
    FERGUSON v. STATE.
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Jan. 21, 1914.)
    1. Intoxicating Liquors (§ 214) —Requisites and Sufficiency.
    Under Pen. Code 1911, art. 626, making it unlawful for any retail liquor dealer to permit lewd women on his premises, an information held not too general or indefinite because not giving the names of the lewd women.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Intoxicating Liquors, Cent. Dig. §§ 253, 254; Dec. Dig. 1 214.]
    2. Criminad Law (§§ 1095, 1102) — Statement of Facts — Time for Filing.
    Statement of facts and bills of exceptions filed more than 20 days after the adjournment of the term of court at which the trial was had will be stricken on motion.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 2847; Dec. Dig. §§ 1095, 1102.]
    Appeal' from McLennan County Court; George N. Denton, Judge. .
    A. B. Ferguson, a retail liquor dealer, was convicted for permitting lewd women on his premises, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
    
      
      For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No.'Series & Rep’r Indexes
    
   PRENDERGAST, P. J.

In this case appellant was prosecuted under P. C. art. 626, for permitting lewd women on his premises; he being a retail malt liquor dealer. His punishment was fixed at a fine of $500 and six months’ imprisonment in jail. After the formal part, the complaint and information charge that in said state and county on or about March 26, 1913, appellant “who was then and there a retail malt dealer, engaged in and pursuing the occupation of selling malt liquor exclusively, capable of producing intoxication, in quantities of one gallon and less, at his place of business, situated on lot 6 block 22, of the Bell-Meade Court addition to the city of Waco, Tex., and described in his license (said license. being issued to him and one D. M. Malone jointly, as a place about 2 miles east of Waco, and about 200 yards south of the Katy Railroad tracks), he, the said A. B. Ferguson, did then and there permit lewd women on his premises, used for the purpose and under the license aforesaid, against the peace and dignity of the state.”

Said árticle of the Code is: “Ño retail liquor dealer, or retail malt dealer, shall employ, or suffer to be employed, other than a member of his family, any female as a servant, bartender, or waitress in his place of business, nor permit on said premises any dancer, singer or lewd woman; and any person violating the provisions of this article shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction, shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than 12 months, or by .a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars, or both such fine and imprisonment.”

Appellant made a motion to quash the complaint and information on these grounds: They present no offense against the laws of Texas; they áre too general, vague, and indefinite; they do not allege the name or names of the lewd woman, or women, alleged to he permitted to enter his premises. The law upon which the prosecution is founded is void and unconstitutional; it makes it an offense to permit lewd women to enter a retail malt liquor dealer’s premises and does not make it an offense for any other woman to do so. The court overruled this motion. Appellant has in no way briefed the case. We think his motion was correctly overruled by the lower court.

The term of court at which the case was tried convened on May 5, and adjourned June 21, 1913. There is in the record what purports to be a statement of facts and several bills of exceptions all of which were filed more than 20 days after the adjournment of the court. The Assistant Attorney General has made a motion to strike them out because filed too late. Under , the many and uniform decisions of this court and the statute, the motion is well taken, and said documents are struck out. De Friend v. State, 153 S. W. 881; Durham v. State, 155 S. W. 222; Butler v. State, 160 S. W. 1191, decided November 19, 1913, not yet officially reported.

In the absence of a statement of facts and bills of exceptions, no question is raised that we can review.

The judgment is therefore affirmed.  