Case Name: PRINCE v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1922-11-08
Citations: 247 S.W. 863
Docket Number: No. 7170
Parties: PRINCE v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 247
Pages: 863–864

Head Matter:
PRINCE v. STATE.
(No. 7170.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Nov. 8, 1922.
Appeal Reinstated and Affirmed Jan. 17, 1923.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 21, 1923.)
1. Bail <&wkey;65 — Appeal dismissed where recognizance fails to state punishment.
On an appeal from a conviction for misdemeanor theft, where the recognizance fails to state the punishment as required by Vernon’s Ann. Code Or. Proc. 1916, art. 919, the appeal will be dismissed on motion of the state.
i
On Motion for Rehearing.
2. False pretenses <&wkey;30 — Averment as to passing worthless check held in accord with statute.
In a prosecution for obtaining personal property by passing a worthless check, an averment in the indictment charging that, at the time of giving and drawing the check and at the time when, in the ordinary course of business it would be presented at the bank on which it was drawn for payment, the accused did not have sufficient funds with which to pay the check, and had no good reason to believe that the cheek would be paid, was in accord .with Penal Code, art. 1422, subd. 4, on swindling.
3. False pretenses <&wkey;2 — Statute as to swindling' held constitutional.
Pen. Code 1911, art. 1422, subd. 4, providing that the obtaining of money or anything of value with intent to defraud by giving a check, draft, or. order on a bank with which the person giving the check, draft, or order has not sufficient funds to pay it, at the time when given, or when it would be presented in the ordinary course of business, and no good reason to believe it would be paid, shall be considered swindling, is not unreasonable or unconstitutional.
4. False pretenses <&wkey;38 — Proof that cheek was drawn in favor of person other than to whom delivered held no variance.
In a prosecution for swindling by obtaining goods for a worthless check, in which the cheek was delivered, and the representations as to its worth were made to L., and the indictment averred that the check was drawn in favor of C., proof that the check was so drawn was no variance.
5. False pretenses <&wkey;49(4)— Evidence held sufficient to support conviction.
In a prosecution for obtaining goods by passing a worthless check, evidence held sufficient to support an averment of the indictment that, at the time the check was drawn, the accused was without funds in the bank and had no good reason to believe that the check would be paid.
6. Indictment and information &wkey;>l25(24)— Indictment for false pretenses held not duplicitous.
In a prosecution for obtaining goods by passing a worthless check, an indictment charging that, by issuance of the check without funds to meet it and without good reason to believe that it would be paid, the goods were obtained, was not rendered duplicitous by accompanying averments that the person who received the check relied upon the representations, since averments in the same count stating the different means by which an offense may have been committed do not render the pleading obnoxious to the rule against duplicity.
7. Criminal law &wkey;763, 764(1) — Refusal to instruct that state’s case was not made out by testimony that accused's account was withdrawn before presentation of check held proper.
In a prosecution for obtaining goods by passing a worthless check, where the accused made no claim of having made any deposit besides one which was withdrawn before the check was presented at the bank, on testimony by the cashier of the bank that the books of the bank were correctly kept and showed that the accused had withdrawn all his money on deposit before the check was presented for payment, a refusal to instruct that the state’s case was not proved was proper.
Appeal from Dallas County Court, at Law; T. A. Work, Judge.
6. D. Prince was convicted of misdemeanor theft, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Oscar H. Calvert, of Dallas, for appellant.
R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
MORROW, P. J.
The conviction is for misdemeanor theft; punishment fixed at a fine of $50 and confinement in the county jail for a period of 7 days.
The recognizance is defective, in that it fails to state the punishment. Code of Crim. Proc. art. 919; Yernon's Texas Crim. Stat. vol. 2, p. 882, Branch's Ann. Tex. Penal Code, § 615 to 617.
The state's motion to dismiss the appeal is sustained.
Forotter Oases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes