
    LOOPER v. STATE.
    (No. 3650.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    June 25, 1915.
    Rehearing Denied Oct. 13, 1915.)
    1. Criminal Law <§==>1114 — Appeal and Error — Question Presented — Sueeicibncy oe Evidence.
    Where, on appeal from a conviction of crime, there were no bills of exception in the record, no complaints as 'to the charge of the court, and no special charges requested below, the only question presented was the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction.
    [Ed. Note. — For other eases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2918, 2921; Dec. Dig. <©=> 1114.]
    2. Vagrancy' <®=>3 — Sufficiency of Evidence.
    In a prosecution for being an idle person without visible means of support, evidence held to support conviction.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Vagrancy,. Cent. Dig. § 3; Dec. Dig. <@==>3J
    Appeal from Johnson County Court; B. Jay Jackson, Judge.
    Jake Looper was convicted of being an idle person without visible means of support, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    W. B. Featkerston, of Cleburne, for appellant. C. C. McDonald, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   HARPER, J.

Under a complaint charging him with, on or about January 1, 1915, and continuously up to the time of filing the complaint, February 19th, being then and there an idle person, the appellant being an able-bodied person, who habitually loaied and loitered about the streets of Cleburne, having no regular employment and no visible means of support, appellant was convicted.

There are no bills of exception in the record, no complaints as to the charge of the court, and no special charges were requested. So the only question presented is the sufficiency of the evidence. W. M. Battle, A. C. White, Jim Hughes, Emmett Dillard, Bob Ewing, and Lee Bizzell testify to facts which fully support the .allegations in the complaint. As a defense appellant relies on the fact that he owned a home in Cleburne valued at $400, two vacant lots, value not given, and some other property, value not given. None of them are shown to produce any revenue, or that he has any income therefrom. If the testimony would show that appellant had visible means of support, or an income sufficient to support himself, wife, and children, we would agree with appellant that the provisions of the law under which he was indicted did not reach his case. But, as no such showing is made, we cannot say that the jury, with the law properly presented to them in the charge, was not authorized to return the verdict they did.

The judgment is affirmed. 
      <©=3F.or other cases see same, topic andKEY-NUJUBER. in all Key-Numbered Digests and.Indexes
     