Case Name: KRAFT v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1920-01-14
Citations: 217 S.W. 1038
Docket Number: No. 5554
Parties: KRAFT v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 217
Pages: 1038–1040

Head Matter:
(86 Tex. Cr. R. 484)
KRAFT v. STATE.
(No. 5554.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Jan. 14, 1920.
On Motion for Rehearing, Feb. 11, 1920.)
1. False pretenses <®=>49(1) — Evidence not-SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN CONVICTION.
In a prosecution for swindling, where it was charged that defendant had acquired and cashed swindled person’s check, and had thereby obtained money belonging to swindled person, evidence showing that the check received had in fact been the check of such person’s -mother and' had been drawn against the mother's funds, and failing to show that defendant had collected money thereon, held not to sustain a conviction; there being no proof that defendant had received the money which the pleading charged him with receiving.
2. False pretenses <&wkey;38 — Check other. TIIAN THAT DESCRIBED IN INFORMATION NOT ADMISSIBLE.
In a prosecution for swindling, where information charged defendant with having acquired and cashed swindled person’s check, the check of swindled person’s mother, drawn against the mother’s money and signed in mother’s name by the swindled person, held inadmissible, not being the check described in the information.
On Motion for Rehearing.
3. Criminal law <&wkey;1133 — Motion fob rehearing MUST BE MADE WITHIN 15 DAYS-AFTER JUDGMENT.
Motion for rehearing, under the rules of the-court, must be made not more than 15 days after rendition of judgment.
4. False pretenses &wkey;>39 — State must shot THAT DEFENDANT COLLECTED MONEY ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN COLLECTED FROM SWINDLED-PERSON.
In prosecution for swindling, the state must-prove that defendant in fact collected the money which the information alleges that he collected-from swindled person.
-5. False pretenses <&wkey;38 — Allegation oe PROCURING SWINDLED PERSON’S CHECK IN--SUEEICIENT TO SUPPORT PROOE OE SWINDLED PERSON’S MOTHER’S CHECK.
In prosecution for swindling, allegations that defendant procured swindled person’s cheek, and procured money thereon, did not support pi-oof of swindled person’s mother’s check .made payable to certain newspaper and clrawn against mother’s funds; there being a distinct variance between such proof and allegations.
Appeal from Travis County Court; D. J. Pickle, Judge.
D. B. Kraft was convicted of swindling, and lie appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Henry Faulk and Monroe & Patterson, all -of Austin, for appellant.
Alvin M. Owsley, Asst Atty. Gen., for the -State.

Opinion:
MORROW, J.
The appellant was convicted of swindling B. C. Haehnel out of $7 by falsely representing himself as agent of a •certain newspaper establishment; the aver-ments, so far as Is necessary to quote, being as follows:
"Did induce said B. .0. Haehnel to pay to the said D. B. Kraft,.and {he said D. B. Kraft did then and there by the means aforesaid acquire from the said B. C. Haehnel, the sum of $7, as -evidenced by a certain check of the said B. C. Haehnel, which the said D. B. Kraft later cashed and obtained thereon the sum of $7, current money of the United States of the value of $7,. the same being the personal and movable property of the said B. C. Haehnel,"
The evidence shows that the appellant received from B. C. Haehnel, in consideration for a 'year's subscription to the newspaper, a check for $7, which check was signed Mrs. B. Haehnel per B. C. Haehnel. B. Haehnel had no money in the bank, but had authority to sign his mother's name; the money against which the check was drawn belonging to her. The proof fails to show that appellant collected the check or obtained any money in the transaction, and further shows that B. G. Haehnel received the newspaper according to contract. It also appears that the appellant had been in the employ of the newspaper named, but that on the day immediately preceding the transaction his relation with it had terminated.
We are of the-opinion that the proof is not sufficient to support the conviction, for the reason that it does not prove that the appellant received the money which the pleading charges him with receiving. We are •also of the opinion that there was error in admitting in evidence the check. As stated in the indictment, the check entered into the offense in a maimer requiring that proof of it agree with the allegation. The check introduced in evidence was not the chéck described in the information. Johnson v. State, 57 Tex. Cr. R. 347, 123 S. W. 143; Wilson v. State, 80 Tex. Cr. R. 623, 193 S. W. 669; Rudy v. State, 81 Tex. Cr. R. 274, 195 S. W. 187, for additional citation of eases.
The judgment is reversed -and the cause remanded.
egx^jFor other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in ail Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
g=>For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes