Court Opinion

ID: 9827421
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:32:12.286766+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:31.117247
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION EOR REHEARING.
On a former day of this term the judgment herein was affirmed. The motion for rehearing is based upon the alleged variance between the name of the owner of the stolen horse set out in the indictment and the name of such owner as proved on the trial. Concede that the indictment alleges the owner’s name to be “Helmer” instead of “Hilmer,” then it is idem sonans with “Hillmer,” as proved. Whenever “the names may be sounded alike without doing violence to the power of the letters found in the variant orthography, or if the name as stated be idem sonans with the true name, the misspelling and variance is immaterial.” Milontree v. The State, 30 Texas Crim. App., 151; Foster v. The State, 1 Texas Crim. App., 531; Goode v. The State, 2 Texas Crim. App., 520; Henry v. The State, 7 Texas Crim. App., 388. There was a'question raised in the trial below whether the name of the owner as set forth in the indictment was spelled “Helmer” or “Hilmer,” the appellant’s contention being that it was “'Helmer.” This motion *417is disposed of upon the theory that the indictment spelled the name “Helmer,” not, as contended, “Hilrner,” as urged by the State. The names are sounded alike, and are idem sonans with “Hillmer,” as the owner’s name is in fact spelled.
Motion for rehearing is overruled.

Motion overruled.

Judges all present and concurring.