Case Name: BERRY v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1926-12-22
Citations: 289 S.W. 412
Docket Number: No. 10521
Parties: BERRY v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 289
Pages: 412–412

Head Matter:
BERRY v. STATE.
(No. 10521.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Dec. 22, 1926.)
• Wallace Malone and Mack Taylor, both of Fort Worth, for appellant.
Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., of Austin, and Robt. M. Lyles, Asst. State’s Atty.-, of Groesbeck, for the State.

Opinion:
MORROW, P. J.
The offense is forgery ; punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for a period of two years.
There were two counts in the indictment',, one of which charged the forgery of a cheek,, the other the attempted passing of a forged check. In each instance the forgery was of the name of J. W. Craven. The proof relied upon was the making of a check signed L. W'* Craven.
The state's attorney before this court concedes that there is a fatal variance between the evidence and the averment. In proof of this offense, if the alleged forged instrument is available, its introduction in evidence is essential. See Wilson v. State; 92 Tex. Cr. R. 281, 243 S. W. 466; Dovalina v. State, 14 Tex. App. 312. It is likewise necessary that the instrument introduced in evidence coincide with that described in the indictment. See Fisehl v. State, 54 Tex. Cr. R. 55, 111 S. W. 410; Vernon's Ann. Tex. P. C. vol. 2, p. 164. The variance in the present case is fatal. See Wallace v. State, 87 Tex. Cr. R. 527, 222 S. W. 1104.
The bills complaining of the procedure are not sustained.
For the reason stated, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.