Case ID: tex-crim_76/html/0397-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PRENDERGAST, Presiding Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Leonard East v. The State.
    No. 3491.
    Decided March 31, 1915.
    1. —Embezzlement—Indictment.
    Where, upon trial of embezzlement, the counts sustained as contained in the indictment followed approved precedent, there was no error in overruling a motion to quash.
    2. —Same—Transferring Indictment.
    Where the transfer of the indictment, etc., from the District Court to the County Court was regular and without any substantial defects, there was no error in overruling a motion to dismiss.
    3. —Same—Statement of Facts.
    In the absence of a statement of facts, the questions raised could not he reviewed on appeal.
    Appeal from the County Court of Lampasas. Tried below before the Hon. J. Tom Higgins.
    Appeal from a conviction of embezzlement; penalty, a fine of $1 and thirty days confinement in the county jail.
    The opinion states the case.
    Ho brief on file for appellant.
    
      G. 0. McDonald, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.
   PRENDERGAST, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was indicted by the grand jury of Lampasas County for embezzlement.

The indictment contains six distinct counts, evidently presenting the same matter in the different counts so as to . meet what the evidence would be.

Appellant made six motions, one each to quash the said respective counts. It seems the court sustained two of them and quashed two counts, but overruled his motions to quash each of the others.

We think it unnecessary to state the counts and the grounds of his motions. The several counts sustained are strictly in accordance with the statute and with the standard forms for indictments prescribed by both Judge White and Judge Willson. •

The orders by the District Court showing the filing of the indictment therein and the transferring of the case from the District to the County Court were regular and without any substantial defect. So that appellant’s motion, as he terms it, “to dismiss the case,” was without merit.

There is no- statement of facts or' bill of exceptions in the record.

No other question is raised, in the absence of these, which can be reviewed.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affi/rmed.