
    PARKER v. STATE.
    (No. 7717.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Oct. 10, 1923.)
    Husband and wife <&wkey;3l3 — Evidence insufficient to sustain conviction for wife desertion.
    Evidence showing that the wife was guilty of misconduct, before and after marriage, and that her acts were neither known nor condoned by defendant, helé insufficient to warrant jury finding that defendant deserted his wife without justification.
    Appeal from Wichita County Court, at Law; Guy Rogers, Judge.
    Steve Parker was convicted of wife desertion, and he appeals.
    Reversed and remanded.
    Mathis & Caldwell, of Wichita Falls, for appellant.
    W. A. Keeling, Atty. Gen., and C. L. Stone, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   MORROW, P. J.

The conviction is for wife desertion; punishment fixed at a fine of $50, and confinement in the county jail for a period of 10 days.

Appellant and his wife were married in Jowa Park on the 1st day of June, 1922. The prosecution began on the 18th day of July. A baby was bom on the 8th of November. Between the 1st day of June and the 18th day of July, the wife received from appellant but $40. Appellant was the driver of a delivery wagon for his mother who con-' ducted a grocery business. The state’s witnesses were without knowledge of appellant’s earnings, but testified that appellant had told his wife he had no money. Prior to the marriage, the prosecutrix had been an inmate of the home of Mrs. Turner, and so continued after the marriage. Mrs. Turner testified for the state that appellant had stated that he was not the father of the child, and gave that as a reason for his failure to support her. The prosecutrix was shown to have been arrested in company with another pan, to have occupied a room at a hotel in the town of her residence, giving an assumed name. She had frequented dance halls, and had been admonished by officers to desist from doing so. She had also been found by peace officers in a hotel having the reputation of a disorderly house, both before and subsequent to her marriage. There was no evidence that appellant knew of any of these acts of prosecutrix before the marriage or condoned them thereafter. In the condition of the record, the opinion is expressed that the evidence does not warrant the finding of the jury that the appellant willfully or without justification deserted his wife. The meaning of these terms is discussed in Ex parte Strong (Tex. Cr. App.) 252 S. W. 768.

For the reason stated, the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded. 
      <gs»For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     