Case Name: John F. Williams v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1921-05-04
Citations: 89 Tex. Crim. 560
Docket Number: No. 6235
Parties: John F. Williams v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 89
Pages: 560–563

Head Matter:
John F. Williams v. The State.
No. 6235.
Decided May 4, 1921.
Rehearing denied June 21, 1921.
1. —Desertion of Child—Sufficiency of the Evidence.
Where, upon trial of the offense of desertion of his child the defendant was convicted and the evidence sustained the conviction, there was no reversible error.
2. —Same—Transcript—Record—Complaint—Practice on Appeal.
The failure to incorporate in the record, on appeal, a complaint made in the court below is simply a ground for dismissal, and upon correction of such record by supplying the missing complaint, the appeal will be reinstated and tried on its merits.
3. —Same—Information—Separate Counts—Practice on Appeal.
Where defendant complained, on appeal, of the fact that the information contained one count for wife desertion and another for desertion of his minor child, and that the State dismissed the first count and that this could be pleaded in bar to the prosecution to the second count; the same is untenable and there is no 'reversible error.
4. —Same—Husband and Wife—Parent and Child—Justification.
Where one abandoned his wife or children, he cannot seek justification by claiming that he knew that he had relatives who would take care of them and not let them suffer, and where defendant was convicted of the desertion of his child, there was no reversible error.
Appeal from the County Court of Collin. Tried below before the Honorable T. O. Murray.
Appeal from a conviction of child desertion; penalty, a fine of $400, and six months’ imprisonment in the county jail.
The opinion states the case.
Woodville J. Rogers, for appellant.
On question of the insufficiency of the evidence: Mercardo v. State, 218 S. W. Rep., 491; Verse v. State, 193 id., 303; Wallace v. State, 210 id., 206; Windham v. State, 192 id., 248.
R. H. Hamilton, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Opinion:
MORROW, Presiding Judge.
The conviction is for desertion, including the refusal to provide for the support and maintenance of his child. Punishment is fixed at a fine of $400 and confinement in the county jail for six months.
The sufficiency of the evidence is assailed. The prosecution was established August 30, 1920, and tried in December, 1920. Appellant married in September, 1918. He abandoned his wife in November, 1919. She, at the time, was living with appellant's father, who was in very poor circumstances. She remained there a week and then went to the home of her own father, who was old and also very poor. Appellant left no money or means of support save that his father testified upon the trial that while he had not so informed the appellant's wife, he would have been willing for her to have remained as a member of his family.
Appellant's child was born in March, 1920. It had received no support from the appellant; had no property; its mother was unable to support it; it was dependent upon the charity of relatives, who were liekwise unable to maintain it.
No communication with appellant was exchanged until about five days before the prosecution began, though the wife sought, in the meantime, to learn of the whereabouts of her husband. About five days before the prosecution he wrote her a letter and offered to renew his relations with her, admitting his wrong and seeking forgiveness. This she declined.
Appellant testified that at the time of his departure he went to East Texas in search of work; that he returned in about three weeks and learned that his wife had gone to her father. He did not claim to have had any contract or agreement with his father to support her; that he did not go to his wife on his return because he regarded himself as unwelcomed at her father's house. He knew of her pregnancy at the time of his departure. He claimed to have made arrangements for medical attention during .her confinement but that this was controverted.
We are unable to concur in the view of the appellant. In our opinion, the proof shows the commission of the offense charged.
The judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.