The appellant in this case was convicted of the crime of vagrancy as defined  and penalized in Act No. 519 of the Philippine Commission, a was sentenced to imprisonment for two months and the payment of the costs of the trial.

The evidence of record discloses that the defendant was discharged from Bilibid Prison some time during the month of March, 1910, after service short sentence for a violation  of  the  Opium  Law; that from that t until  the date  of his prosecution on this charge of vagrancy, he ha been  engaged in no legal occupation, and was without any apparent means of support other than that supplied him by his mother; that he an  able-bodied man of 33  years of age;  that he habitually neglected to apply himself  to any lawful calling, and that he spent time in loitering about the streets and frequenting cockpits and place where games of various  kinds  were  conducted  and where gambling was carried on; that

The accused,  on his own behalf, testified that he was supported by h mother, with whom he lived, and that he worked on her  property.  The evidence in this connection is not very satisfactory,  but it seems clear his mother is a woman of very small means, and that if she has any property at  all,  it is so small as to be wholly inadequate to  furn even  a pretense of  work for an able-bodied man.  The  accused, in explaining where he got the money to bet at  the cockpits, claimed the on various occasions his mother gave him small sums for that purpose, and that when he won he brought her the proceeds.  These statements of the  accused merely serve  to confirm us in our opinion  that the defendant was an  idle,  shiftless and worthless man who made no attempt to follow any  legal calling, and whose  habits of life were of an immoral and dissolute good for nothing.

In the case of Gavin vs. The State  (96 Miss., 377), the court that: 

"In vagrancy,  the offense consists in general worthlessness ; that i in being idle, and, though able to work, refusing to do so, and living without labor, or on the charity of others."

This  definition of the offense substantially  corresponds with the d of that class of vagrancy  set forth in the first part  of  section 1 the Philippine  Vagrancy Act (Act No. 519), which provides that:

"Every person having no apparent means of subsistence, who has the physical ability to work, and who neglects to apply himself or herself some lawful calling  *   *   * is a vagrant."

We do not think that the claim by this able-bodied man, 33 years of age, that  he was living on the charity of his mother, can be said to rebut the other  evidence  in the record which  tended to disclose  that he  had no apparent means of support. He had no legal or moral claim upon his mother for support, and indeed, from the indications i record as to the scanty means possessed by the mother, it would appeal that it was his  filial  duty  to aid her rather than to call upon he aid.

In the case of People vs. Herrick  (59  Mich., 563), the court construing the words "visible means  of support" held that the  use o word indicates that  appearances must to some extent be relied upon; and that the words "visible" and  "apparent" were words  of similar purport and meaning.   Anderson's Law Dictionary defines the word "apparent" as follows: "Readily seen; evident; self-evident; manifest

We are of opinion that one who makes no  pretense  to follow any lawful calling or  occupation, who makes no effort to support himself whose  time is spent  in  loitering and wandering about the streets a frequenting cockpits and other places where gambling is carried on, c be said to have any apparent,  visible, self-evident or manifest mean support, despite his  claim  that  he is living upon the charity  of mother, when it  appears that  he has no claim either legal  or moral upon her. for support, and that his mother's  limited means would just the expectation that she would receive assistance from her son rather than  render assistance to him.

The judgment of conviction  and the sentence imposed by the trial  co should be and are hereby affirmed, with the costs of this instance against  the appellant.

Arellano, C. J., Torres,  Mapa, Johnson, and Trent, JJ. concur.