Case ID: tex-crim_98/html/0131-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "HAWKINS, Judge. HAWKINS, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

F. M. Whaley v. The State.
    No. 8453.
    Decided May 28, 1924.
    Rehearing denied June 27, 1924.
    1. —Swindling—Practice on Appeal — Statement of Facts.
    In the absence of a statement of facts and bills of exception nothing is present case, the motion for rehearing must be overruled.
    2. —Same—Rehearing—Information—Arrest of Judgment.
    Where the information was in approved form, and the authorities cited by appellant that the information is insufficient have no application to the present case, the motion for rehearing must be overruled.
    Appeal from the County Court of Tarrant. Tried below before the Honorable P. W. Seward.
    Appeal from a conviction of misdemeanor swindling; penalty, a fine of $25.00 and five days confinement in the county jail.
    The opinion states the case.
    
      Alexander & Baldwin, for appellant.
    — On question of insufficiency of information: Moore v. State, 197 S. W. Rep., 728; Farmer v. State, 213 id., 669; Luce v. State, 224 id., 1095; Mathews v. State, 48 id., 189; McGinty v. State, 245 id., 924; Osborne v. State, 245 id., 928; Pospishel v. State, 255 S. W. Rep., 738.
    
      Tom Garrard, Attorney for the State and Grover G. Morris, Assistant Attorney for the State.
   HAWKINS, Judge.

— Conviction is for misdemeanor swindling with punishment assessed at a fine of $25 and five 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.

Affirmed.

ON REHEARING.

June 27, 1924.

HAWKINS, Judge.

— At the time 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 check, 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 in overruled.

Overruled.