Earl v. State

• Decision Date: 21 November 1894
• Citation: 28 S.W. 469
• Parties: EARL et al. v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

28 S.W. 469

EARL et al. v. STATE.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

November 21, 1894.

Appeal from Shelby county court; R. L. Parker, Judge.

Prince Earl and others were convicted for stealing a hog, and appealed. Affirmed.

J. O. B. Richardson and M. W. Wheeler, for appellant. R. L. Henry, for the State.

DAVIDSON, J.

This conviction was for hog theft. The indictment charged the value of the hog to be "$3." Motion to quash was made, because the value was not written in "plain and intelligible words," as required by the statute. Code Cr. Proc. art. 420, subd. 7. Is the figure 3, prefixed by the dollar mark, "plain and intelligible words," within the purview of the statute? We think sufficiently so. "An indictment for any offense against the penal laws of this state shall be deemed sufficient which charges the commission of the offense in ordinary and concise language in such manner as to enable a person of common understanding to know what is meant, and with that degree of certainty that will give the defendant notice of the particular offense with which he is charged and enable the court on conviction to pronounce the proper judgment." Code Cr. Proc. art. 428a. The statutory ingredients of the offense must be set in the indictment, and if it be then sufficient to "enable the accused to plead the judgment that may be given upon it in bar of any prosecution for the same offense," the indictment will be valid. It is now too well settled, we think, to be questioned that Arabic numerals and all well-defined and well-understood abbreviations may be used in indictments without rendering them defective. Brown v. State, 16 Tex. App. 245; State v. Reed, 35 Me. 489; Com. v. Hagarman, 10 Allen, 401; Corn v. Kingman, 14 Gray, 85; 1 Bish. Cr. Proc. (3d Ed.) §§ 345, 346, and notes. And this is true as to all pleadings in this country. 1 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, p. 16, and note 6, for cited authorities. When values are to be expressed in pleadings, adjudicated cases hold that the money of our federal government may be indicated by using the dollar mark, $, and Arabic numerals, for that purpose. Throughout the Union, in all financial transactions expressed in writing, it is and has been the habit, practice, and custom of all the people to so express values. Among those nations of the world where our money circulates, or is the subject of exchange in commercial dealings had with the citizenship of this country, these marks are thoroughly appreciated, and their...