Hearne v. State.

PRENDERGAST, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was convicted for unlawfully keeping a disorderly house,—an assignation house, and her punishment assessed as prescribed by law.

It is unnecessary to detail the evidence. We have carefully considered it and it is sufficient to show her guilt clearly, fully, completely and satisfactorily. In appellant’s first bill of exception she complains that the State was permitted to ask Barden: “Do you know whether a fellow named Charlie Armington lived with defendant ?” to which he answered, “I don’t know.” This clearly shows no error. Sweeney v. State, 65 Texas…