Hardaman v. State

• Decision Date: 29 April 1925
• Docket Number: (No. 8951.)
• Citation: 273 S.W. 584
• Parties: HARDAMAN v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

273 S.W. 584

HARDAMAN v. STATE.

(No. 8951.)

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 29, 1925.

Appeal Reinstated June 3, 1925.

Commissioners' Decision.

Appeal from Tarrant County Court at Law; P. W. Seward, Judge.

Rose Hardaman was convicted of keeping a bawdy house, and she appeals. Reversed and remanded.

John W. Baskin and Sam S. Beene, both of Fort Worth, for appellant.

Tom Garrard, State's Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State's Atty., both of Austin, for the State.

BERRY, J.

Appellant was convicted in the county court at law of Tarrant county for the offense of keeping a bawdy house, and her punishment assessed at a fine of $400 and 40 days in jail.

The state has filed a motion to dismiss this case on account of defects concerning the appeal bond. Art. 918, Code of Criminal Procedure, as amended by the Acts of the Thirty-Sixth Legislature, c. 18, § 1, set out in Vernon's Code of Criminal Procedure, article 918 of the 1922 Supplement, provides for bonds in this character of cases to be taken by the sheriff in an amount to be fixed by the court, which bond must be approved by either the sheriff or the judge who tried the case or his successor in office.

The record does not disclose affirmatively that the judge trying the case ever fixed the amount of the bond in any manner; but it appears that, after the bond had been executed some two days, the trial court approved it as to form and amount, and the sheriff approved it as to sureties. In the absence of an order of the court fixing the amount of the bond at the time it was entered into on the 22d day of May, 1924, the bond was invalid and not subject to forfeiture. The bond being invalid at the time it was signed by the principal and sureties, it could not subsequently be made valid by the action of the court in approving it as to form and amount. We think the contention of the state in the matter is correct, and accordingly hold that the bond is not valid, under the article of the statute above quoted. Turpin v. State, 86 Tex. Cr. R. 96, 215 S. W. 455, and authorities therein cited.

Appellant is hereby allowed 15 days from this date to file a correct appeal bond under the statute, otherwise the judgment shall become final.

Because the appeal bond is invalid, the appeal is hereby dismissed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court.

Appeal Reinstated.

BERRY, J.

This case was dismissed at a former day of this term because of a defective appeal bond. Appellant has shown to this court that the record has been corrected in this respect, and the appeal is reinstated, and the case is now properly before us for disposition.

The testimony shows that on or about the 3d of April the witness Teas went to home of the defendant and asked her for a room, and asked her if she had any ladies, and she showed him a room and asked him would he like to see one of the girls and he told her, "Yes," and that immediately a girl came to his room, and he paid the appellant for the room. This witness testified that he had intercourse with the girl in said room. The record fails to disclose any other facts that would strengthen the above testimony to the effect that appellant was keeping a bawdy house.

We have therefore the question presented, "does proof of one act of illicit intercourse constitute the keeping of a bawdy house under our statutes?" The statute (Pen. Code 1911, art. 496), under which this appellant was...