Case ID: sw2d_35/html/0713-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "MORROW, P. J. LATTIMORE, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

ROACH v. STATE.
    No. 13936.
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Jan. 28, 1931.
    Rehearing Denied March 4, 1931.
    R. M. Gardner, of Amarillo, for appellant.
    Eloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.
   MORROW, P. J.

The conviction is for swindling in an amount of less than $50; 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 exceptions. No fundamental error has been perceived.

The judgment is affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

LATTIMORE, J.

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 cannot agree to the contention. A corporation can be the victim of swindling. Nasets v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 32 S. W. 698; Faulk v. State, 38 Tex. Cr. R. 78, 41 S. W. 616; Spurlock v. State, 45 Tex. Cr. R. 284, 77 S. W. 447. We think the indictment sufficient.

The motion for rehearing will be overruled.