Case Name: G. D. Prince v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1923-01-17
Citations: 93 Tex. Crim. 230
Docket Number: No. 7170
Parties: G. D. Prince v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 93
Pages: 230–233

Head Matter:
G. D. Prince v. The State.
No. 7170.
Decided January 17, 1923.
1. —Misdemeanor Theft — Recognizance—Punishment.
Where the recognizance failed to state the punishment the same is defective and the appeal must be dismissed. However, a new recognizance having been made, the dismissal is set aside.
2. —Same—Indictment—Constitutional Law.
Where the indictment charged the defendant, that at the time of the giving and drawing a check on a certain bank, he did not have sufficient funds therein to pay the check and had no good reason to believe that said check would be paid, the same .was sufficient, and the law is not unreasonable or unconstitutional. Following Pruitt v. State, 83 Texas Crim. Rep., 148, and other cases.
3. —Same—Evidence—Check—Variance.
Where the check was delivered to the agent of the company the fact that it was drawn in favor of said company was in accord with the averment in the indictment and proof of it was no variance.
4. —Same—Sufficiency of the Evidence.
Where it inferentially appeared from the evidence that at the time the check was drawn defendant was without funds in the bank upon which it was drawn, and it affirmatively appeared that he had previously issued checks sufficient to exhaust his account, the conviction is sustained.
5. —Same—Indictment—Duplicity—Rule ■ Stated.
Averments in the same count in the indictment, stating the different means by which the offense may have been committed, do not render the pleading obnoxious to the rule against duplicity.
6. —Same—Evidence—Case Stated — Sufficiency of the Evidence.
Where the assistant cashier of the bank testified that in his capacity as an officer of the bank he was familiar with the bank’s accounts, that the books and accounts were correctly kept, and they showed that defendant had withdrawn all of his funds in the bank before the check in question was presented, the State’s case was made out, and it was not necessary to call other employees of the bank to negative the fact that other deposits had been made by the- defendant. Distinguishing Moore v. State, 20 Texas Crim. App., 233. Following Scoggins v. State, 244 S. W. Rep., 536.
Appeal from the County Court of Dallas. Tried below before the Honorable T. A. Work.
Appeal from a conviction of misdemeanor theft; penalty, a fine of $50 and seven days confinement in the county jail.
The opinion states the case.
Oscar H. Calvert, for appellant.
On the question of variance, Mathews v. State, 33 Texas, 102; Spurlock v. State, 45 Texas Crim. Rep., 284; McKnight v. State, 70 id., 470; Whittaker v. State, 211 S. W. Rep., 786.
On question of insufficiency of indictment, Fromme v. State, 212 S. W. Rep., 501.
R. G. Storey, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Opinion:
MORROW, Presiding Judge.
The conviction is for misdemeanor theft; punishment fixed at a fine of fifty dollars and confinement in the county jail for a period of seven days.
The recognizance is defective in that it fails to state the punishment. Code of Crim. Proc., Art. 919; Vernon's Texas Crim. Stat., Vol. 2, p. 882; Branch's Ann. Tex. Penal Code, Sec. 615 to 617.
The State's motion to dismiss the appeal is sustained.
Dismissed.