Mansfield v. State

• Decision Date: 20 January 1894
• Parties: MANSFIELD v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

24 S.W. 901

MANSFIELD v. STATE.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

January 20, 1894.

Appeal from Tarrant county court; Robert G. Johnson, Judge.

Mike Mansfield was convicted of crime, and appeals. Affirmed.

W. R. McLaury, for appellant. R. L. Henry, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

DAVIDSON, J.

Omitting preceding averments, the indictment alleges that defendant "was the owner, lessee, and tenant of a certain house there situate, and did then and there knowingly permit the keeping in said house of a disorderly house, to wit, a house kept for prostitution, and where prostitutes were permitted to resort and reside, for the purpose of plying their vocation." Under the act of 1889, (page 33,) any owner of a house, who shall knowingly permit it to be kept as a disorderly house, shall be punished as therein designated. By the terms of the same act, any house kept for prostitution, or where prostitutes are permitted to resort or reside for the purpose of plying their vocation, is declared to be a disorderly house. Acts 1889, p. 33, arts. 339, 341. The indictment sufficiently alleges the offense sought to be charged under these statutes, and is not obnoxious to the criticisms of appellant's motions to quash and in arrest of judgment.

Attorney for appellant complains that the court erred in limiting his argument to 25 minutes. Under the facts of this case, we do not think the court abused his discretion in so restricting the argument. In regard to the main question, to wit, did defendant knowingly permit his house to be kept for the inhibited purposes set out in the indictment? the facts were of easy solution. There was nothing in the testimony requiring extended argument by either side. It is only in cases where injury has probably accrued or resulted to a defendant that this court would feel called upon to reverse a judgment because of a restriction of the argument. The evidence fully sustains the judgment, and it is affirmed.