tel at Gorman was a house of ill fame or a house of prostitution. The conviction appears to be based upon the idea that the transaction at Gorman, and possibly the same kind of transaction at Cisco, in which the prostitute, with the knowledge and aid of appellant, plied her vocation at a place out in the woods and in a pasture, neither of which were shown to be a house of prostitution, tent, or any kind of attempted inclosure, but simply in the open country sheltered by the darkness, was a violation of the terms of the act touching the entry of a "place" in which prostitution is encouraged.

The use of the word "place" in the first paragraph of the court's charge suggests the idea that such was the view of the trial court. The indictment, it occurs to us, should have been under article 498 of the statute, which makes it a penal offense to procure a female for the purpose of having sexual intercourse with any male; the words being as follows:

"It shall be unlawful for any person to invite, solicit, procure, allure or use any means for the purpose of alluring or procuring any female to visit and be at any particular house, room or place for the purpose of meeting and having unlawful sexual intercourse with any male person."

There is no evidence of fraud, duress, or abuse of position of confidence or authority. At all events, we do not think the evidence supports the necessary element of the prosecution charging appellant's acts to have been in connection with bringing or keeping of the female named in a "house of prostitution." There is evidence that he went with her to a house of a man in Cisco with whom neither of them were acquainted; her mission being, as we understand it, to get work in connection with a restaurant or work of some kind. She stayed at the house mentioned for a day or two, and subsequently returned there on her own accord, and on one of the occasions she had intercourse with the owner of the house, so far as evident, without any arrangement or knowledge on the part of appellant. She also says that she had sexual intercourse with a man in the hotel at which she stopped, but this was when she had gone there without appellant accompanying her.

[3] That the evidence raised an issue as to either of these houses being a house of prostitution is doubtful. If, however, it did raise such issue, or the evidence does upon another trial, the special charges requested by appellant or similar special charges defining a house of prostitution should be given.

It has been held that, where the evidence is undisputed that a certain house is a house of prostitution and the issue in the case is not the character of the house but the acts of the accused with reference to it, no instruction defining a house of prostitution is necessary. Clark v. State, 76 Tex. Cr. R. 348, 174 S. W. 354. In this case, however,

there is no exclusive proof that either of the houses mentioned were houses of prostitution or where prostitution was encouraged or allowed within the meaning of the law, under which circumstances the charges mentioned were necessary. Hewitt v. State, 71 Tex. Cr. R. 243, 158 S. W. 1120.

The judgment of the lower court is reversed, and the cause remanded.

MULKEY v. STATE. (No. 4675.) (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas. Feb. 6, 1918.)

1. ANIMALS 29-STOCK LAWS-AUTHORITY OF LEGISLATURE.

the Legislature may pass laws for the reguUnder Const. art. 16, § 23, declaring that lation of live stock, and the protection of stock raisers in any part of the state, and may exempt from the operation of such laws other sections or counties, and shall have power to pass general and special laws for the inspection of cattle, etc., provided that any local law thus passed shall be submitted to the freeholders of the section to be affected thereby, the of live stock affecting any given locality, and Legislature can pass laws for the regulation making it effective with or without submitting it to a vote.

2. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 62-DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY-WHAT CONSTITUTES.

Rev. St. 1911, art. 7312 et seq., creating the live stock sanitary commission, authorizing the commission to establish, maintain, and enforce such quarantine line and sanitary rules as may be necessary, to make and promulgate rules and regulations which shall permit and govern inspection and shipment of cattle from quarantine ful to move or allow any cattle or other live districts, and declaring that it shall be unlawstock to be moved from any quarantine district in any manner, method, or condition other that notice shall be given by proclamation of the than as prescribed by the commission, and Governor, and Acts 33d Leg. c. 169, § 3 (Vernon's Sayles' Ann. Civ. St. 1914, art. 7314b), forbidding the removal of live stock from a quarantine district without compliance with the rules and regulations of the commission, as proclaimed by the Governor, are not invalid as a delegation of legislative power to an administrative body.

3. CRIMINAL LAW 304 (17)-JUDICIAL NOTICE-PROCLAMATION.

Under the Tick Eradication and Quarantine Law (Acts 33d Leg. c. 169 [Vernon's Sayles' court and jury will take judicial notice of the Ann. Civ. St. 1914, arts. 7314-7314e]), the rules and regulations of the live stock sanitary commission proclaimed by the Governor, but judicial notice cannot be taken of rules and regulations not so proclaimed. 4. CRIMINAL LAW 304(17)-JUDICIAL NOTICE-PROCLAMATION OF GOVERNOR.

As the Governor has no authority to make rules and regulations for the protection of live stock, proof of a violation of a proclamation by the Governor defining a special quarantine area and forbidding the movement of cattle into or from such area, without inspection, etc., will not support a conviction of a violation of the rules and regulations of the live stock sanitary commission proclaimed by the Governor; for, as the proclamation of the Governor did not show that the rules and regulations were adopted by the commission, the court cannot take judicial notice that such rules and regulations were prescribed by the commission.

In St. Louis S. W. R. R. Co. v. Smith, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 451, 49 S. W. 632, it was said by our Ft. Worth Court of Civil Appeals that, where our live stock sanitary commission has declared quarantine lines as to animals so as to prevent communication of disease there from, and has prescribed rules and regulations to make such quarantine effective, and the Governor has properly proclaimed them, "such lines and such regulations have all the force of law, and, as such, should be obeyed by every class of our citizenship," and it was held in that case that, where said commission had quarantined against cattle from Louisiana being shipped into this state, and it had been properly proclaimed by the Governor, that Smith, the plaintiff therein, could

not recover from the railroad the value of the cattle shipped by him in violation of that quarantine and proclamation. That case was affirmed by the United States Supreme Court, 181 U. S. 248, 21 Sup. Ct. 603, 45 L. Ed. 847.

In Smith v. State, 74 Tex. Cr. R. 232, 168 S. W. 522, where appellant was convicted for driving his cattle across the quarantine line in violation of the line so established by our said commission, it was held that such establishment and regulation by the commission was not the exercise of a delegation of the power to legislate; that such authority therefor was contained in the law enacted by the Legislature to that effect, citing several decisions.

In 3 C. J. (Corpus Juris) p. 50, it is said: "The authority of the Legislature to enact laws for the protection of domestic animals, and to prevent the spread of infectious or contagious diseases among them, is everywhere recognized as a valid exercise of the police power of the state. Thus the state may prescribe stock quarantine regulations, and may also require its citizens, at their expense, to disinfect their diseased or infected live stock or infected places."

In section 148, p. 51, it is said: "Under the commerce and police powers both the federal and state governments may pass quarantine laws for the purpose of isolating diseased or suspected cattle, and thus preventing their communicating disease to other cattle with which they may otherwise come in contact. These laws usually confer authority to establish and maintain such quarantine as may be necessary upon the state board of agriculture or live stock commission. In the exercise of the authority thus conferred, such board or commission may make all reasonable and necessary rules and regulations for the enforcement of the law."

In section 147, p. 51, it is said: "It is within the power of the Legislature to confer upon officers or commissions authority to execute the law and to adopt all needful regulations to that end. Legislation of this char: acter is not a delegation of legislative functions"

-citing several authorities.

Again, in section 182, p. 60, it is said that: "In order to render its quarantine legislation effective of the purpose sought to be attained, the state has power to provide punishment for

tion of sanitary and quarantine regulations, as, for instance, driving or transporting diseased cattle from one state to another, is frequently made a misdemeanor or a penal offense."

Under these authorities we think the au

thority given to our live stock sanitary commission to quarantine live stock and to adopt rules and regulations to enforce the same, when properly promulgated by the Governor, is not the exercise of legislative functions by the commission, and that such rules and regulations so properly promulgated are valid, and the violation thereof may be made an offense. This results in holding that the indictment herein was valid in charging an of

[3, 4] It has been correctly held under said Tick Eradication and Quarantine Law that the court and jury had to take judicial knowl

edge of the Governor's proclamation pro

claiming such quarantine and the rules and that it was not necessary to prove them. Mcregulations adopted by said commission, and Gee v. State, 194 S. W. 953. However, neither this court nor any other court is bound to take judicial notice of any rules and regulations adopted by the said Commission which have not been proclaimed by the Governor. In, fact such rules and regulations, even though adopted by the commission, are without force and effect unless and until the Governor proclaims them by his proclamation.

In this case doubtless the state and the court below relied upon the proclamation of the Governor described in the information. We have examined that orginal proclamation in the office of the secretary of state. It in no way proclaims any rule or regulation which had been adopted by said commission. It simply states that certain counties (naming them), including Coacho and Runnels, are hereby declared to be under special quarantine known as the special quarantined area, and in another paragraph that it shall be unlawful for any cattle, etc., to be moved into, within, or from said area until they have been inspected and certified by an inspector of the live stock sanitary commission or the United States Bureau of Animal Industry. In another paragraph that inspectors shall not issue certificates on any of such live stock moved within or from said area unless they have been dipped-one dipping if the stock are free from ticks, and two or more dippings with an interval of at least seven days when they are infected with ticks. This proclamation does not proclaim nor purport to proclaim that any or either of said rules and regulations have been adopted by said commission nor are they proclaimed as such, but on the face of the proclamation the Governor himself, without any regard to the commis

sion or any action by it, states therein what we have shown. The Governor of himself has no power nor authority to adopt any rules and regulations on the subject. The commission must do this. His duty is to proclaim, not what he has done, but what the commission has done, in order to put the rules and regulations of the commission in force.

Under this state of the case the trial judge charged the jury, in effect, that said rules and regulations of said commission were in force and effect in Concho and Runnels counties, making it unlawful for any cattle to be moved into, within, or from Concho to Runnels county until they had been inspected and certified by an inspector of the said commission or the United States Bureau of Animal Industry. The whole charge of the court was based on the idea that it could and did take judicial knowledge of said proclamation by the Governor, and that it proclaimed that the said claimed rules and regulations had been adopted by said commission. This was all properly excepted to at the time by the appellant, and presents reversible error.

If the live stock sanitary commission had itself adopted the said rules and regulations, and the Governor by said proclamation had proclaimed that the said commission had done so in his proclamation, then an altogether different question would have been presented.

For the error in the court's charge the judgment is reversed, and the cause manded.

re

ANDERSON v. STATE. (No. 4919.) (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas. March 6, 1918.)

BAIL 58-BOND-LIABILITY OF SURETYFORM OF BOND.

Under Code Cr. Proc. 1911, art. 321, as amended by Acts 26th Leg. c. 74, stating requisites of a bail bond, a bond naming offense of "violating the local option law" created no liability in the surety, since it neither stated that the offense was a felony nor named an offense eo nomine prescribed by law.

ceive of more mistakes and conflicts in a bail bond than were made in this one. However, it is only necessary to state one.

The law prior to Acts 1899, p. 111, which amended article 321, C. C. P., prescribed as one of the requisites of a bail bond that it should distinctly state the offense of which the defendant was accused, and that it must appear to be an accusation of some offense against the laws of the state. The said article, as it has been since amended by the act of 1899, instead prescribes as one of the requisites that the bond shall state that the defendant is charged with an offense, that is, a felony, if the charge is a felony, but, if a misdemeanor, that it shall state that he is charged with a misdemeanor. In other words the law now is that the bond in this particular will be sufficient if it states merely that the offense charged is a felony without telling what the offense is. Under this statute either this must be done, or the specific offense must be stated.

In this bond the offense is stated as "violating the local option law." There is no such offense eo nomine prescribed by law. This defect renders the bond fatally defective. No valid judgment could be rendered thereon, if there were no other defects. It is unnecessary to cite the decisions. They are noted under articles 320 and 321, C. C. P. Reversed and remanded.

H. F. O'Neal, Judge.

PRENDERGAST, J. Appellant appeals from a final judgment against him as a surety in a sci. fa. case on what was claimed to be a bail bond. He points out many defects of this bond and conflicts therein which he claims are fatal to prevent any valid judgment thereon against him. It is unnecessary to even state all of these. It is difficult to con

171

RECEPSUBSEQUENT CON