Case Name: BRADBERRY v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1912-12-18
Citations: 152 S.W. 169
Docket Number: 
Parties: BRADBERRY v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 152
Pages: 169–173

Head Matter:
BRADBERRY v. STATE.
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Dec. 18, 1912.)
Indictment and Information (§ 41 )— Sufficiency — Preliminary Complaint.
An information charging accused with the crime of pulling down the fence of another which was filed on December 22d is insufficient under the statute providing that, before such an information can be filed, a complaint properly sworn to must be made and filed, though reciting the filing of a complaint on December 20th, where the jurat attached to the complaint bore no date and the file mark was the same as that of the information.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Indictment and Information, Cent. Dig. §§ 152, 163-169; Dec. Dig. § 41. ]
Prendergast, J., dissenting.
Appeal from Nolan County Court; Jno. J. Ford, Judge.
W. H. Bradberry was convicted of the crime of pulling down the fence of another, and he appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
O. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
For other oases see same topic and section NUMBBR in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
DAVIDSON, P. J.
Appellant was convicted of pulling down the fence of another. The validity and sufficiency of the complaint is questioned. It recites that "heretofore, to wit, on or about the 20th day of December, 1910," etc., and is signed by E. W. Withers. The jurat is as follows: "Sworn to and subscribed by E. W. Withers, a credible person, before me, on this day of December, A. D. 1910. Geo. T. Wilson, County Attorney." It was filed on December 22, 1910. The information purporting to be base'd upon this complaint was also filed on the 22d day of December, 1910. The statute requires that before an information can be filed a complaint properly sworn to must also be made and filed, and the information is not justified and cannot be filed legally until after making the complaint. The file marks upon the two documents show they were filed on the same date, to wit, 22d day of December, 1910, but the jurat does not show at what time the complaint was sworn to, whether before or after the filing of the information. As we understand the law, it must affirmatively appear that the complaint was sworn to before the information was filed. These pleadings do not show this to have been the fact. So far as the matter presented is concerned, this complaint may have been sworn to after filing the information.
It does not carry with it that certainty with reference to this question that is required by law, therefore we hold that the judgment should be reversed, and the cause remanded, and it is accordingly so ordered.