Case Name: J. B. James v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1925-02-04
Citations: 99 Tex. Crim. 395
Docket Number: No. 8917
Parties: J. B. James v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 99
Pages: 395–400

Head Matter:
J. B. James v. The State.
No. 8917.
Delivered February 4, 1925.
Rehearing granted State March 4, 1925.
1. —Swindling—Special Judge — Record Must Show Election of.
Where it appears from the record that the case was tried before a special judge, it must also show the election and qualification of the special judge, and the minutes of the court must show the manner of his election and his oath, and be embraced in the transcript on appeal. In the absence of these the judgment is treated as a nullity, and a reversal is ordered.
OR EEHEAEIRO.
2. —Same—Transcript—Correction of — Permissible.
This court has uniformly held that a defective record sent up, through negligence of a clerk in its preparation, may be corrected on motion of either the appellant or the State. A record when once filed in this court, cannot thereafter be removed, and Rule 2 prescribed by the Supreme Court, for the Courts of Civil Appeals, are not applicable to the correction of records in this court.
8. — Same—Transcripts—No Fee Allowed Clerk — if Defective.
Where a defective transcript is sent up from a lower court, through the negligence of the clerk no fee should be allowed the clerk of the trial court for .its preparation.
4. —Same—Indictment and Proof — No Variance.
Where on a trial for swindling the indictment charges that the false representations were made, and the worthless check given to E. M. Piper, and the proof showed that the transaction was had with C. L. Hurst, an employee of Piper, but in the presence of Piper, there is no variance shown.
5. —Same—Principals—Who Are.
In this case the proof showed that appellant négotiated the purchase of an automobile from E. M. Piper, that he took a woman to Piper’s place of business, whom he induced to give a cheek in the sum of $275.00 for the payment of said automobile, the title to which was conveyed to appellant, and that he also represented to Piper that the check was good and would be paid on demand. This proof clearly established that appellant was a principal, and sustains his conviction as such.
6. —Same—Evidence—Res Gestae — Admissible.
Where a witness is present and hears all of the representations of appellant in a transaction that is shown to have been a swindle, it is permissible for such witness to testify, his testimony being a part of the res gestae.
7. —Same—Evidence—Of Bank Cashier — Admissible.
On a trial for swindling by giving a worthless check, it is permissible for such witness to so testify, his testimony being a part of the res gestae that were no funds on deposit to the credit of the drawer of the check, at the time it was given.
8. —Same—Circumstantial Evidence — Charge on — Properly Refused.
Where the evidence is direct as in this case, the trial court properly refused to give a special charge submitting the law of circumstantial evidence. See Wampler v. State, 28 Tex. Crim. App. 352 and other cases in Branch’s Ann. P. C. Sec. 1874 subdiv. 6.
Appeal from the Criminal District Court of Dallas County. Tried below before the Hon. Grover C. Adams, Special Judge.
Appeal from a conviction for swindling; penalty, two years in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case.
Mays, Chaney & Daily, of Dallas, for appellant.
Shelly Cox, District Attorney, of Dallas, Wm. McCraw, Assistant District Attorney, of Dallas, Tom Garrard, State’s Attorney, and Grover C. Morris, Assistant State’s Attorney, for the State.

Opinion:
MORROW, Presiding Judge.
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 sf»ecial 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 Texas Crim. App. 166; Reed v. State, 55 Texas Crim. Rep. 137.
The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
Reversed and remanded.