Case ID: tex-crim_32/html/0594-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "DAVIDSON, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

S. B. Hall v. The State.
    
      No. 180.
    
    
      Decided February 17.
    
    1. Complaint, Sufficiency of.—A complaint is sufficient which states that affiant has good reason to believe, and does believe,” the accused committed the offense charged therein.
    2. Idem Sonans.—The names “ George” and “ Georg” are idem sonans.
    Appeal from the County Court of Greer. Tried below before Hon. Charles M. Thacker, County Judge.
    Appellant was prosecuted by information for aggravated assault, and upon trial was convicted, his punishment being assessed at a fine of $5.
    A motion was made to quash the affidavit or complaint upon which the information was based, because affiant had not stated positively that the assault had been committed, but had only sworn that “ he had good reason to believe, and does believe,” that said assault was committed. This motion to quash was overruled.
    There is no statement of facts or bill of exceptions in the record.
    No brief for appellant.
    
      H. L. Henry, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.
   DAVIDSON, Judge.

The complaint upon which the information is predicated, states that the affiant “ has good reason to believe, and does believe,” the defendant committed the offense charged.

It is urged that this does not sufficiently charge that an offense has been committed. The point is not well taken. Brown v. The State, 11 Texas Cr. App., 451; Clark v. The State, 23 Texas Cr. App., 260.

In repeating the name of George Manes, the alleged assaulted party, the name George is written Georg, omitting the final letter e from the termination of the name, and this is made a ground of the motion to quash. The court did not err in overruling the motion. The names are idem sonans.

In the absence of the testimony and bills of exceptions, we are unable to review the remaining questions suggested.

As presented to us, we find no error requiring a reversal of the judgment, and it is therefore affirmed.

Affirmed.

Judges all present and concurring.