
    BARKER v. STATE.
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Dec. 6, 1911.)
    1. Husband and Wife (§ 107) — Capacity to Commit Crime — Married Women.
    A married woman may be convicted as principal with her husband in the commission of a crime, where she did not act under coercion or duress.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Husband and Wife, Cent. Dig. § 38G; Dec. Dig. § 107.]
    2. Husband and Wife (§ 108) — Capacity- to Commit Ceime — Maeeied Women —Coercion of Husband.
    Where, on the trial of a married woman for keeping a bawdy house, her husband testified that he rented the house, and that when he was away from home his wife looked after the house and controlled it, and there was evidence _ that the house was a bawdy house, and a police officer testified that accused had admitted to him that the house was a bawdy house, and that she was keeping it, the evidence justified a finding that accused was a principal and did not act under coercion or duress.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Husband and Wife, Cent. Dig. § 391; Dec. Dig. § 108.]
    3. CRIMINAL Daw (§ 1064) — Questions Reviewable — Instructions.
    The refusal to give requested instructions in a misdemeanor case not complained of in the motion for new 'trial cannot be considered on appeal.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 2683; Dec. Dig'. § 1064.]
    4. Disorderly House (§ 16*) — Evidence — Admissibility.
    On a trial for keeping a disorderly house, evidence of the general reputation of the house, that it had the reputation of being a disorderly house where lewd women resorted and resided, was admissible.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Disorderly House, Cent. Dig. § 22; Dec. Dig. § 16.]
    5. Criminal Law (§ 1091) — Questions Reviewable — Instructions—Bill of Exceptions.
    A bill of exceptions complaining of instructions which does not point out any error in the instructions cannot be considered on appeal.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 2818; Dec. Dig. § 1091.]
    6. Criminal Law (§§ 1056, 1038, 1064)— Questions Review able — Instructions — Bill of Exceptions.
    Where the court in a misdemeanor case approved a bill of exceptions complaining of instructions and certified that no exception was taken at the time, and it appeared that no special charge was requested, and the motion for new trial did not complain of the instructions, the instructions were not reviewable on appeal.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2668, 2670, 2646, 2683; Dec. Dig. §§ 1056, 1038, 1064.]
    Appeal from Dallas County Court, at Law; W. F. Whitehurst, Judge.
    Mollie Barker was convicted of crime, and she appeals.
    Affirmed.
    F. D. Cosby and W. T. Strange, for appellant. C. B. 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
    
   -HARPER, J.

Appellant was prosecuted under information and complaint charging that she “did unlawfully and directly keep and was concerned in keeping a certain house, then and there situated, as a house where prostitutes were permitted to resort and reside ' for the purpose of plying their vocation, and as a house kept for the purposes of prostitution.”

The motion for a new trial contains but three grounds, all relating to the same matter. It alleges: (1) That the court erred in instructing the jury upon the law of principals, claiming that no such issue was raised by the evidence, as the defendant was a married woman living with her husband; (2) that the evidence showing appellant is a married woman, living with her husband, who is the head of the family and controls the house, the evidence is insufficient to convict; and (3) that the defendant, being a married woman, could not make a contract for renting or leasing premises upon which a disorderly house might exist.

A married woman can in law be convicted as a principal with her husband in the commission of an offense against the law, if the facts so justify and she is not acting under coercion or duress, and that she was so acting is not suggested by the testimony.

On the other hand, her husband testified that he rented the house, but when he was away from home his wife (appellant) looked after the house and had control of it. The evidence justified the jury in finding that the house in question was one where prostitutes were permitted to resort for the purpose of plying their vocation, and one witness, Policeman John Murray, testified that appellant admitted to him it was a house of prostitution, and admitted she was keeping it, but requested him not to tell her feon that she was running such a house.

There are in the record three special charges requested by appellant; but in the motion for a new trial appellant does not complain of the failure of the court to give them, and, of course, they cannot be considered by this court, this being a conviction for a misdemeanor. However, we have read the charges, and in so far as they are applicable to the evidence they were covered in the charge of the court given to the jury.

While not mentioned in the motion for a new trial, there are several bills, of exception in the record complaining that certain witnesses were permitted to testify to the general reputation of the house in question, and it had the reputation of being a bawdy house and a house where prostitutes resorted and resided. This question has been before this court .in a number of cases, and this testimony held to be admissible in this character of case.

In bills of exception Nos. 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 it is alleged that the court erred in certain paragraphs of his charge, but in the bill merely stating: “Be it remembered that on the trial of the above cause, the court, over the objection of defendant, charged the jury as follows: * * * Defendant duly excepted to said charge and tenders this his bill of exception and prays that same be examined, approved, and filed as a part of the record of this cause.” Which bills are indorsed: “Approved with- this qualification: No objection was made at the time the charge was given to the jury.” Signed by the judge. This ease was tried January 31, 1911. Motion for a new trial was overruled on same day, while these bills bear date March 24, 1911, and are not mentioned in the motion for new trial.

In the first place, they do not point out any error in the charge, and cannot be considered for this reason. Pollard v. State, 58 Tex. Cr. R. 299, 125 S. W. 390.

Again, not being contained in the motion for a new trial, and the court certifying that no exception was taken at the time of the trial, and it further appearing that no special charge was requested in regard to the matters complained of in these bills, they present no error; this being a conviction under a misdemeanor charge.

Other matters are assigned in the brief not mentioned in the bills of exception, nor in the motion for a new trial, and, of course, we cannot consider same.

The judgment is affirmed.  