DocketNumber: No. 1463.
Citation Numbers: 142 S.W. 917, 64 Tex. Crim. 480
Judges: HARPER, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 1/10/1912
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/13/2023
Appellant was tried and convicted under an information and complaint charging him with theft and his punishment assessed at confinement in the county jail for thirty days.
The information alleges that appellant did unlawfully and fraudulently take from the possession of J.F. Boatman one slicker of the value of $3.50, the same being the corporeal personal property of and belonging to said Boatman, without his consent, and with the intent to deprive him of the value thereof, and to "apprpriate" the said property to his own use and benefit.
The only question presented on appeal is that the information and complaint instead of using the word appropriate used in lieu thereof "apprpriate," the letter "o" being omitted in spelling the word.
In the case of Jones v. State, 25 Texas Crim. App., 621, this court held that in an indictment for theft where the word "appriate" was used instead of appropriate, that the indictment should have been quashed. In that case the letters "pro" or entire syllable was omitted instead of merely the letter "o" as in this information. We have carefully studied the many decisions of this court on the subject of sufficiency of indictments. In the case of Earp v. State,
There being no statement of facts or bills of exception in the record, the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.