Case ID: tex-crim_117/html/0534-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "MORROW, Presiding Judge. LATTIMORE, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

G. W. Roach v. The State.
    No. 13936.
    Delivered January 26, 1931.
    Rehearing Denied March 4, 1931.
    
      The opinion states the case.
    
      R. M. Gardner, of Amarillo, for appellant.
    
      Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Attorney, of Austin, for the State.
   MORROW, Presiding Judge.

— The conviction is for swindling in an amount of less than fifty dollars; penalty, confinement in the county jail for a period of ninety days.

The indictment appears regular. The record is before us without statement of facts and bills of exception. No fundamental error has been perceived.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.

LATTIMORE, Judge.

— Appellant moves for a rehearing herein, asserting that the indictment is fundamentally defective. We have again examined the indictment. The contention of appellant seems to be based on the proposition that in a swindling case, and where the party swindled is alleged to be a corporation, this could not be sufficient to constitute swindling, for a corporation is not an individual person. We can not agree to the contention. A corporation can be the victim of swindling. Nasets v. State (Texas Crim. App.), 32 S. W., 698; Faulk v. State, 38 Texas Crim. Rep., 78, 41 S. W., 616; Spurlock v. State, 45 Texas Crim. Rep., 284, 77 S. W., 447. We think the indictment is sufficient.

The motion for rehearing will be overruled.

Overruled.