John Secrist v. State

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.

LATTIMORE, Judge.

In his motion appellant urges that we erred in not sustaining the contention in his bill of exceptions No. 2 wherein he complained because the court did not submit to the jury the question of whether the defendant had. knowledge of the alleged unlawful acts occurring at the hotel. Appellant refers us to the case of Despos v. State, 8 S. W. (2d) 126, contending that same is authority in support of his contention. Inspection of that case makes plain that appellant misapprehends same. Art. 514 of our Penal Code penalizes him who shall keep or be concerned…