Case ID: sw_132/html/0766-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "RAMSEY, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

LONGARDY v. STATE.
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Dec. 7, 1910.)
    Larceny (§ 30) — Information — Theft of Money — Description.
    An information charging the theft of money, describing it as $10 in money, which passed current as-money of the United States of America, of the value of $10, sufficiently described the money alleged to have been stolen.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Larceny, Cent. Dig. § 72; Dec. Dig. § 30.]
    Appeal from Dallas. County Court; W. M. Holland, Judge.
    Edward Longardy was convicted of theft, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Baker & Strong, for appellant. John A. Mobley, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
    
      
      For other oases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dee. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep’r Indexes
    
   RAMSEY, J.

By information filed in the county court at law of Dallas county appellant was charged with theft less than $50. On a trial had thereafter on 'September 26th of this year appellant was found guilty, and his punishment assessed at confinement in the county jail for a period of one year.

Practically the only question raised on the appeal relates to the sufficiency of the information as to the description of the money alleged to have been stolen, and also to the sufficiency of the evidence to support this charge. The money is thus described: “Ten dollars in money, which passed current as money of the United States of America, of the value of ten dollars.” Mr. Odom, the man from whom the money was charged to have been stolen, describes the money as follows: “The $10 bill that was taken out of my purse as I have described was $10 in money that passed current as money of the United States of America and was of the value of $10.” We think the description of the money sufficient, and the evidence directly supports this description. Dalton v. State, 50 Tex. Cr. R. 524, 98 S. W. 855; Lewis v. State, 28 Tex. App. 140, 12 S. W. 736; Wofford v. State, 29 Tex. App. 536, 16 S. W. 535; Otero v. State, 30 Tex. App. 450, 17 S. W. 1081; Kelly v. State, 34 Tex. Cr. R. 412, 31 S. W. 174; Colter v. State, 37 Tex. Cr. R. 284, 39 S. W. 576.

Finding no error in the record, it is ordered that the judgment of conviction be, and the same is hereby, in all things affirmed.