Case Name: JONES v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1927-01-26
Citations: 291 S.W. 1105
Docket Number: No. 10348
Parties: JONES v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 291
Pages: 1105–1107

Head Matter:
JONES v. STATE.
(No. 10348.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Jan. 26, 1927.
Rehearing Granted March 2, 1927.)
W. H. Jack Jr., W. H. Jack, Sr., and S. H. Jack; all of Corsicana, for appellant.
Sam D. Stinson, .State’s Atty., of Austin, and Robt. M. Lyles, Asst. State’s Atty., of Gíoesbéck, for the- State.

Opinion:
BETHEA, J.,
The appellant was convicted in . the'district court of Navarro county of forging a landtitl.e, denounced by article 1006, P. 0., and his. punishment assessed at 5 years in the penitentiary.
We havÁcáréfully examined the statement of facts and finid the same amply sufficient to Support the'verdict of the jury.
The appellant's bills of exception 5, 6, and 7 complain of the argument of the prosecuting attorney. We have carefully examined these three bills and hold that, while the argument complained of should not have been indulged in by the state's attorney, the same does not appear to have been appropriated by the jury, in view of the fact that they assessed the lowest penalty fixed by the law.
Bill of exceptions No. 8 complains of the action of the court in giving the following charge to the jury:
"Jt is sufficient if it-appears that possibly somq one might be injured or defrauded thereby."
We are unable to agree with the appellant's contention. That part of the charge complained of- and quoted above is only a portion of paragraph 5 of the court's main charge, and, when read and considered along with the entire paragraph, it presents no error.
The appellant, by a number of bills of exception complains of the learned trial judge's charge on principals. We are unable to agree with this contention. The statute on principals applies to all offenses, so far as forgery is concerned, exactly the same as if the statute was embraced in and made a part of the -forgery statute.
"Where several combine to forge and pass a forged instrument, accused doing one act, and his confederates others, all are principals, and may be prosecuted as such."
See Phillips v. State, 6 Tex. App. 364; Dillard v. State, 77 Tex. Cr. R. 1, 177 S. W. 99; Ferguson v. State, 79 Tex. Cr. R. 641, 187 S. W. 476; art. 1010, P. C.
The appellant, by his bills of exception Nos. 17, 18, and 19, insists that the indictment in a case of this character must allege, and the proof must substantiate, the intention to defraud and injure in some definite and specific manner, and contends that the charge of the court in the instant case instructed and authorized the jury to convict the appellant upon the basis of an indefinite and uncertain "intent to defraud and injure." We are unable to agree with this contention. This question is fully and ably discussed in the case of Decherd v. State, 104 Tex. Cr. R. 105, 283 S. W. 168.
There are other questions raised in the record, but we do not deem them of sufficient materiality to call for discussion.
There being no errors disclosed by the rec'ord, and the facts' being sufficient to support the verdict, the judgment is affirmed.
PER CURIAM.
The foregoing ¿pinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court.