Case ID: sw_263/html/0287-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "HAWKINS, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

WHALEY v. STATE.
    (No. 8453.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    May 28, 1924.
    Rehearing Denied June 27, 1924.)
    False pretenses <3=326 — Information charging swindling by giving person check on bank not possessing funds of maker held sufficient.
    , An information, which charged swindling by the giving and drawing of a cheek, and alleged accused, the drawer, had no funds in the bank to pay the same, and hid no,good reason to believe the check would be paid, etc., held sufficient to charge an offense.
    Appeal from Tarrant County Court at Law; P. W. Seward, Judge.
    E. H. Whaley was convicted of misdemean- or swindling, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Alexander & Baldwin, of Port Worth, for appellant.
    , Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.
   HAWKINS, J.

Conviction .is for misdemeanor swindling, with punishment assessed at a fine of $25 and 5 days’ confinement in the county jail.

The record contains neither statement of facts nor bills of exception. In such condition nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

At the tirne the former opinion in this case was prepared no brief was on file for appellant. He now files a motion for rehearing in which it is insisted that his motion in arrest of judgment should have been sustained for the alleged insufficiency of the information upon which the prosecution is based. It charged swindling by the giving and drawing of a cheek, with an allegation that appellant, who was the drawer of the check, had no funds in the bank to pay the same, and had no good reason to believe that the check would be paid, etc. We have examined the authorities cited by appellant, and have been unable to see their application to the present case. We do not detect any vice in the information. It appears to sufficiently charge an offense.

The motion for rehearing is overruled.