Leon v. State
| Decision Date | 13 June 1923 |
| Docket Number | (No. 7797.) |
| Citation | 252 S.W. 551 |
| Parties | LEON et al. v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from El Paso County Court, at Law; J. M. Deaver, Judge.
I. Leon and A. J. Roberts were convicted of swindling, and they appeal. Reversed, and prosecution ordered dismissed.
W. Joe Bryan, of El Paso, for appellants.
R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellants were convicted in the county court at law of El Paso county of misdemeanor swindling, and their punishment fixed at a fine of $250 each.
The information under which the conviction was had, omitting formal parts, is as follows:
"In said county of El Paso, and state of Texas, I. Leon and A. J. Roberts, devising and intending to secure the unlawful acquisition of $26 in money, of the value of $26, the personal property of W. B. Arens, and with the intent to appropriate said money to their own use and benefit, did then and there unlawfully and fraudulently acquire possession thereof, from the said W. B. Arens, by means of false, and deceitful pretenses, devices, and fraudulent representations unlawfully, knowingly, and fraudulently then made by them, the said I. Leon and A. J. Roberts, to the said W. B. Arens, in this: That they then and there did falsely pretend and fraudulently represent to the said W. B. Arens that a certain wrist watch, which they were then and there offering for sale to the highest bidder, was made of white gold, and was of the ordinary retail value of $32, and thereby induced the said W. B. Arens to part with his $26 and deliver title and possession thereof to them, the said I. Leon and A. J. Roberts; whereas, in truth and in fact, the wrist watch, then and there offered for sale, to the highest bidder by the said I. Leon and A. J. Roberts, was not made of white gold, and was not of the ordinary retail value of $32, and said pretenses and representations so made, and devices so used, were false, and fraudulent, and they, the said I. Leon and A. J. Roberts, then and there well knew that the said pretenses, devices, and representations were false and fraudulent when so made and used, against the peace and dignity of the state."
No motion was made to quash the information, and it was not attacked until a motion was made in arrest of judgment. Such motion would come too late, except the pleading be defective in matter of substance, but if the information in fact charged no offense against the laws of this state, the defect could be reached...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cochran v. State
...W. 788. Complaint of the mere form of an indictment cannot be for the first time made in a motion in arrest of judgment. Leon v. State, 95 Tex. Cr. R. 124, 252 S. W. 551; Melley v. State, 93 Tex. Cr. R. 522, 248 S. W. Much of the able and ingenious argument in the brief of appellant's couns......
-
Perez v. State
...offense? If the indictment was not defective in matter of substance, the motion in arrest of judgment came too late. Leon et al. v. State, 95 Tex. Cr. R. 124, 252 S. W. 551; Ortez v. State, 101 Tex. Cr. R. 471, 276 S. W. 236; Melley v. State, 93 Tex. Cr. R. 522, 248 S. W. In charging assaul......
-
Griffith v. State, 23256.
...anything for the $6.25 which the injured party paid to her. For this reason, the information is fatally defective. In Leon v. State, 95 Tex.Cr.R. 124, 252 S.W. 551, 552, in passing upon the sufficiency of the information to charge swindling, we said: "An examination of the information above......