Case Name: JAMES v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1925-02-04
Citations: 269 S.W. 788
Docket Number: No. 8917
Parties: JAMES v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 269
Pages: 788–790

Head Matter:
JAMES v. STATE.
(No. 8917.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Feb. 4, 1925.
On Motion for Rehearing March 4, 1925.)
1. Criminal law <©==>i086(3) — Failure of record to show conditions justifying election and qualification of special judge requires reversal.
Judgment of conviction will not be sustained, unless minutes of court show conditions justifying selection of special judge, the manner of his election, and his oath, in view of Vernon’s Ann. Code Or. Proc. 1916, arts. 618, 618a, 620; 622.
On Motion for Rehearing.
2. Criminal law <S=>1110(3) — Record corrected, where defects were due to negligence of clerk preparing it.
Correction of record to show conditions justifying election and qualification of special judge omitted from record by negligence of clerk may be permitted in view of Vernon’s Ann. Code Cr. Proc. 1916, arts. 929, 931, and Rev. St. arts. 1608, 2108, notwithstanding rule 2 of Supreme Court, applying rules in civil to criminal eases arising on certiorari.
3. Costs <©=>317 — No fee should he allowedi for preparation of defective transcript.
Clerk of trial court should not be allowed fee for preparation of defective transcript.
4. False pretenses <©=>38 — Proof of false representations held not variance from aver-ments.
In prosecution for swindling, proof that false representations were made to salesman of car held not a variance from averments in indictment that they were made to owner, where owner was present and acted on them.
5. False pretenses <§=>49(4) — Averment that check was not good or believed good by accused held supported by evidence.
. In prosecution for swindling, evidence held sufficient to support averment that check given for car was not good, and not' believed by accused to be good.
6. Criminal law <©=>829(I)'«~Refusal of special charge sustained, where embraced in charges given.
Refusal of special charge requested, adequately embraced in other charges, held not error.
7. Criminal law <@=>364(2) — Testimony of salesman of car sold to alleged swindler properly admitted.
Testimony of salesman as to representations by accused to him held properly admitted as part of res gestas, since it was in part upon such representations that owner was induced, to part with property for worthless check.
8. Criminal law <©=>814(17) — Circumstantial evidence charge in swindling case held properly refused under direct evidence of offense.
In prosecution for swindling by securing car in exchange for worthless cheek, where accomplice testified directly that check was not good, and that accused knew it, requested charge on circumstantial evidence held properly refused.
9. False pretenses <©=>51 — Evidence of swindling held to warrant denial of peremptory charge to acquit.
In prosecution for swindling by receiving car for worthless check, refusal to direct acquittal, held warranted by evidence.
Appeal from Criminal District Court, Dallas County; Grover C. Adams, Special Judge.
J. B. James was convicted of swindling, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
See, also, 96 Tex. Cr. R. 308, 257 S. W. 886.
Chaney & Dailey, of Dallas, for appellant.
Shelby S. Cox, Cr. Dist. Atty., and Wm. McCraw, Asst. Cr. Dist. Atty., both of Dal-la?, and Tom Garrard, States’ Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
MORROW, P. J.
The offense is swindling; punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for a period of two years. It appears from the record that the case was tried before the honorable Grover C. Adams, special judge, but the record is silent touching the election and qualification of the said special judge.
The statute providing for the selection of a special judge requires that the minutes of the court shall show the conditions justifying his selection, the manner of his election, and his oath. In the absence of these, the judgment is treated as nullity and a reversal is ordered. See C. C. P. arts. 618, 618a, 620, and 622; also, Perry v. State, 14 Tex. App. 166; Reed v. State, 55 Tex. Cr. R. 137, 114 S. W. 834.
The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.
<©=>For other oases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in ail Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes