Court Opinion

ID: 9827636
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:43:09.216384+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:33.977912
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.
Appellant insists that the proof failed to meet the allegation, and he cites Chaves v. State, 275 S. W. Rep. 1006. The *462allegation in the indictment in that case differs from that in the instant case. In the case now before us it was, alleged that the accused transported spirituous, vinous and intoxicating liquor capable of producing intoxication. It appears from the record that in the indictment the word “intoxicating” was written “intoxication,” but this was treated and regarded both by the trial court and appellant as merely a matter of misspelling. In his charge to, the jury the learned trial judge instructed them that appellant was charged with transporting spirituous, vinous and “intoxicating” liquor capable of producing intoxication. No exception was addressed to this. In appellant’s motion for an instructed verdict, he asked for same stating that defendant was charged with the unlawful transportation of spirituous, vinous and “intoxicating” liquor, — this statement appearing twice in said motion. Again in appellant’s motion for new trial he states that .the indictment charged him with the unlawful transportation of spirituous, vinous and “intoxicating” liquor. The rule in this State is too well settled to need citation of authorities, that an indictment will not be held defective for the mere misspelling of a word.
Holding then that the indictment charged the transportation of “intoxicating liquor capable of producing intoxication,” it is entirely different from the indictment in the Chaves case, supra, which charged transportation of “spirituous, vinous and malt liquor, capable of producing intoxication.” The proof in this case showing that the liquor transported by appellant was intoxicating, this met the allegation in the indictment. The proof in the Chaves case, supra, did not meet the allegation in the indictment. The Chaves case is not authority for appellant’s contention.
Believing the original disposition of this case to be correct, the motion for rehearing will be overruled.

Overruled.