Case Name: Jack Ellis v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1925-06-17
Citations: 101 Tex. Crim. 647
Docket Number: No. 9534
Parties: Jack Ellis v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 101
Pages: 647–650

Head Matter:
Jack Ellis v. The State.
No. 9534.
Delivered June 17, 1925.
Rehearing Denied Nov. 11, 1925.
1. - — Child Desertion — Requested Charge — Properly Refused.
Where on a trial for child desertion appellant requested the court to charge the jury, in effect that it was the duty of the wife and mother to take all the money which is given her for other necessary purposes, and use it exclusively for the children, such requested charge was not a proper presentation of the law, and was properly refused.
OX BEHEABIXG.
2. —Same—Statute Construed — Cases Distinguished.
Our statute Art. 640, C. C. P., denouncing and providing a penalty for wife and child desertion, prescribes three different elements which constitute that offense, and the opinions of this court heretofore delivered, were directed to the particular manner in which the appellant was charged with a violation of said statute and construed the statute in its application to the particular facts presented. The facts in each case were considered in the light of the particular allegation of a violation, as set out in the complaint and information, and the evidence adduced.
3. —Same—Continued.
In the instant case, the state relied for a conviction upon the evidence that appellant had deserted his children, and left the state, going to Oklahoma. In all of the cases cited by appellant on rehearing, the elements relied upon by the state were entirely different from those in the instant case, and do not sustain appellant’s contention that the evidence is insufficient. Following, O’Brien v. State, 234 S. W. 668; Bobo v. State, 235 S. W. 878. Distinguishing Elm v. State, 270 S. W. 856; Otto v. State, 266 S. W. 787, and other cases cited in this opinion.
Appeal from the County Court at Law of Wichita County. Tried below before the Hon. C. M. McFarland, Judge. .
The opinion states the case.
Mathis & Caldwell, for appellant.
W. Somerville, County Attorney, Tom Garrard, State’s Attorney, ■ and Grover C. Morris, Assistant State's Attorney, for the State.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, Judge.
From a conviction in the County Court of Wichita County at Law for child desertion, with punishment fixed at a fine of $100.00 and one year in the county jail this appeal is taken.
The facts show that appellant married his wife and had by her three children and because of his neglect and treatment of her she procured a divorce from him. In January, 1925, the couple were remarried. On the 3d day of April, 1925, the complaint and information in this case were presented. But one witness testified, she being the wife of appellant, and her testimony shows that from the time of their remarriage appellant began to take from her what little she had made or accumulated during their separation, and that he has contributed to the support of the children nothing. It is needless for us to set out the facts at length. They are sufficient to show that for some time prior to the filing of the information herein appellant had been continually taking from her what money and property she had and that he was contributing nothing to the support either of herself or their three minor children under sixteen years of age.
The only bill of exceptions complains of the refusal of a special charge in which refusal we perceive no error. The law does not make it the duty of the wife and mother to take all of the money which is given to her for other necessary purposes, and use it exclusively for the children. Such would be the legal effect of the requested charge, complaint of the refusal of which appears in the bill of exceptions.
Finding no error in the record, the judgment will be affirmed.
Affirmed.