¶1The offense is burglary of a private residence at night; the punishment, 20 years.
¶2The indictment alleged the burglary of the private residence of Julius C. Roberson with intent to commit a felony, to wit, to ravish and have carnal knowledge of a named female under the age of 18 years who was an occupant of said house.
¶3Reversal is sought upon the ground that the indictment is fatally defective in that there was no allegation that the named female was not the wife of the defendant.
¶4The indictment was not attacked in the trial court by motion to quash or by exception. We overrule the contention that it is fundamentally defective.
¶5The word “ravish” used in the indictment implies the use of force and want of consent and the indictment is sufficient to charge the offense of burglary of a private residence at night with intent to commit the felony offense of rape by force. Edworthy v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 371 S.W.2d 563; Rodrigues v. State, 166 Tex.Cr.R. 1, 308 S.W.2d 39.
¶6There were no objections to the court’s charge and no requested charges were refused.
¶7The evidence shows that at about two o’clock A.M. appellant opened the door and entered the upstairs apartment occupied and used by Julius C. Roberson as a place of residence, and entered the room in said apartment in which Mr. Roberson’s 17 year old step-daughter, a school girl, was sleeping. His baby boy and 12 year old son were also in the room.
¶8Appellant was seen by Mr. Roberson’s step-son, Carl Dan Lee, going up the stairs. Carl Dan followed and apprehended appellant in his sister’s room. He was standing beside the girl’s bed naked, with his sexual organ in his hand.
¶9Carl Dan hit him and attempted to hold him but appellant went across the bed and out the upstairs window. Thinking it was someone he knew, Carl Dan said “Wess?” and appellant said “Yes, man this is Wess (or West).” Carl Dan managed to hold him by the wrist until other members of the family responded to his call and helped him get appellant back into the room. His mother, step-father and brother joined Carl Dan in assaulting appellant and in attempting to restrain him. He got downstairs and out of the apartment building before he was finally subdued by Carl Dan and his 18 year old brother. They restrained him until officers responded to their mother’s call and took appellant into custody. He told the officers his name was “Smith”.
¶10Appellant’s clothes, neatly folded and stacked, were found in a vacant downstairs apartment, the window of which had been broken. The lady occupant of another downstairs apartment, who was alone at the time, had reported to Carl Dan that someone was trying to get into her apartment through a kitchen window. His response to her report accounted for his being downstairs and seeing the man go up the stairway.
¶11*388Appellant did not testify. The only evidence offered in his behalf was the testimony of his companions of the night to the effect that he was intoxicated when they separated from him at about 1 or 1:30 A.M.
¶12The state offered the testimony of the arresting officer that appellant was not intoxicated when arrested.
¶13The 17 year old girl named in the indictment testified that she had never seen appellant before and was not aware of his being in her room; that she was asleep until awakened by a figure going across her bed and through the window.
¶14We find the evidence sufficient to sustain the conviction and no reversible error appears.
¶15The judgment is affirmed.