Case Name: Clabe Wright v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1916-04-12
Citations: 79 Tex. Crim. 371
Docket Number: No. 4040
Parties: Clabe Weight v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 79
Pages: 371–371

Head Matter:
Clabe Weight v. The State.
No. 4040.
Decided April 12, 1916.
Robbery — Indictment.
Where, upon trial of robbery, the indictment followed approved precedent and .alleged robbery under the statutes, there was no error in overruling the motion to quash.
Appeal from the District Court of Grayson. Tried below before the Hon. M. H. Garnett.
Appeal from a conviction of robbery; penalty, five years imprisonment in the penitentiary.
Leaving out formal parts of the indictment, the same alleged that Clabe Wright did unlawfully and wilfully make an assault upon the person of Louis Griffin, and then and there by said assault and by violence to the said Louis Griffin and by putting the said Louis Griffin in fear of life and bodily injury, and by then and there using and exhibiting a firearm, towit, a shotgun, and did then and there unlawfully and fraudulently take from the person and possession and without the consent and against the will of the said Louis Griffin one gallon of whisky of the value of three dollars, the said property then and there being the corporeal personal property of the said Louis Griffin, with the fraudulent and unlawful intent then and there of him, the said Clabe Wright, to deprive the said Louis Griffin of the.value of the same and to appropriate the same to the use and benefit of him, the said Clabe Wright. Against the peace and dignity of the State.
Ho brief on file for defendant.
C. C. McDonald, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Opinion:
HARPER, Judge.
Appellant was convicted of 'robbery and his punishment assessed at five years confinement in the State penitentiary.
Ho statement of facts accompanies the record. Consequently, the only ground presented in the motion for a new trial we can consider is the one attacking the sufficiency of the indictment. The indictment charges robbery under our statute, and the court did not err in overruling the motion to quash it.
The judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.