Austin v. State

HAWKINS, Judge.

— Appellant was convicted for keeping a bawdy house.

The information nowhere alleges that appellant “owned,” “leased,” “occupied” or “controlled” the house. It simply alleges that he “kept and was concerned” in keeping it. The information would have been good under the old law. Killman v. State, 2 Texas Crim. App., 222; Lowe v. State, 4 Texas Crim. App., 34. But such is not the case under present Article 500, P. C.; Lamar v. State, 30 Texas Crim. Rep., 693, 18 S. W. Rep., 788; Mitchell v. State, 34 Texas Crim. Rep., 311, 30 S. W. Rep., 810. Under the amendment of 1889 only the…