Todd v. State
| Decision Date | 02 November 1910 |
| Citation | 131 S.W. 606 |
| Parties | TODD v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from Grayson County Court; J. W. Hassell, Judge.
Tom Todd was convicted of keeping a disorderly house, and he appeals. Affirmed.
John A. Mobley, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was indicted and tried in the court below for keeping a disorderly house, to wit, a certain house where spirituous, vinous, and malt liquors were sold without a license, in the county of Grayson. The indictment contains several counts. His trial in the court below resulted in a conviction for keeping a disorderly house on the 1st day of June, the 1st day of July, the 15th day of August, and the 1st day of October, 1908, and his punishment assessed at a fine of $200 and 20 days in jail for each of said dates. From this conviction, appellant has appealed to this court, asking for a reversal on the ground, first, that a jury was not selected in compliance with the law, in that the jury was drawn under the provisions of the act of the 30th Legislature (Acts 30th Leg. c. 139) known as the "jury wheel law"; second, that the act defining a disorderly house as being a place kept by a person for the sale of intoxicating liquors without license is unconstitutional and void; third, that in this character of a case it is not permissible in the court below to allow the state to prove the general reputation of the house; and, fourth, the appellant contends, and filed a plea in the court below, that he had already been convicted for the same offense on the dates mentioned, and therefore he is not amenable in this prosecution.
All of the questions, except the last have been before this court and decided adversely to the appellant's contention. See Joliff v. State, 53 Tex. Cr. R. 61, 109 S. W. 176, and Sweeney v. State, 128 S. W. 390. In regard to the last question, it may be stated that the plea of autrefois convict sets up that he had been indicted for selling whisky on the same dates as alleged in this indictment, and had been tried and convicted for same. This plea was stricken out by the court below, on the ground that it was not the same offense, but a different offense. Here the offense for which the appellant was being prosecuted is for being the keeper of a house, and was concerned in keeping a house, in which spirituous, vinous, and malt liquors were sold and kept for sale without a license. The court below correctly overruled appellant's plea of former conviction, as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Duke
...177; Bumbaugh v. State, 56 Tex. Cr. App. 331, 120 S. W. 424; Tacchini v. State, 126 S. W. 1139; Sweeney v. State, 128 S. W. 390; Todd v. State, 131 S. W. 606; and Morford v. State, 131 S. W. 569, and probably others), will disclose the fact that in all of them the prosecutions arose in coun......
-
Hitchings v. State
...present no error. Joliff v. State, 53 Tex. Cr. R. 61, 109 S. W. 176; Sweeny v. State, 59 Tex. Cr. R. 370, 128 S. W. 390; Todd v. State, 60 Tex. Cr. R. 199, 131 S. W. 606. 3. There are a number of grounds contained in the motion for a new trial, but we do not deem it necessary to discuss any......