Case ID: tex-ct-app_26/html/0577-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Willson, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 3055.
    Joe Smith v. The State.
    Fraudulent Disposition op Mortgaged Property.—Indictment, to be sufficient to charge the offense of disposing of mortgaged property with intent to defraud, must allege the name of the person to whom the mortgaged property was disposed of, or that the name of such person was unknown to the grand jury.
    Appeal from the District Court of Lamar. Tried below before the Hon. E. D. McClellan.
    
      Opinion delivered December 19, 1888.
    The conviction was for the fraudulent disposition of mortgaged property, and the penalty assessed by the verdict was a term of two years in the penitentiary.
    The sufficiency of the indictment is the one question determined on this appeal.
    No brief on file for the appellant.
    
      W. L. Davidson, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.
   Willson, Judge.

This appeal is from a conviction for “disposing of and trading off” mortgaged property with intent to defraud. The indictment is fatally defective because it does not allege the name of the person to whom the property was disposed of, or traded, nor that the name of such person was unknown to the grand jurors. (Presley v. The State, 24 Texas Ct. App., 494.)

The judgment is reversed and the prosecution'is dismissed.

Reversed and dismissed.