Case ID: sw_151/html/0301-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "HARPER, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CUBINE v. STATE.
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Nov. 6, 1912.
    Rehearing Denied Dec. 4, 1912.)
    Criminal Law (§ 214*) — Preliminary Complaint— Amendment — Error in Jurat — —Lack oe Date.
    Where by mistake the officer, in affixing his jurat to a criminal complaint, left off the year, the court, on request of the county attorney before trial, properly permitted the jurat to be amended to show the exact date upon which it was made.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 433%; Dec. Dig. § 214.*]
    Appeal from Fannin County Court; Rosser Thomas, Judge.
    Will Cubine was convicted of violating the local option law, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Will Cubine, in pro. per. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   HARPER, J.

Appellant was prosecuted and convicted of violating the local option law, and Ms punishment assessed at a fine of $30 and 30 days’ imprisonment in the county jail.

There is no statement of facts accompanying the record. Consequently there is but’ one question presented that we can review, and that is presented in bills of exception Nos. 1 and 2. It appears that, when complaint was filed, the officer in affixing his-jurat left off the year; the jurat reading: “Subscribed and sworn to before me this 31st day of August, A. D. 190 — .” The county attorney, before trial, requested the permission of the court to have the officer amend and correct his jurat, which leave was granted by the court, and the officer before whom the complaint was sworn to amended his jurat to read as follows: “Subscribed and sworn to before me this 31st day of August, 1911.” This was permissible, and the court did not err in permitting the jurat to be amended. Scott v. State, 9 Tex. App. 434; Allen v. State (App.) 13 S. W. 998; Neiman v. State, 29 Tex. App. 361, 16 S. W. 253; Sanders v. State, 52 Tex. Cr. R. 156, 105 S. W. 803.

The judgment is affirmed.