Nichols v. State
| Decision Date | 07 December 1904 |
| Citation | 83 S.W. 1113 |
| Parties | NICHOLS et al. v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Harris County; J. K. P. Gillaspie, Judge.
Proceeding by the state against C. G. Nichols and others on a forfeited recognizance. Judgment for the state, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.
Ed. R. Campbell and J. H. Davenport, for appellants. E. T. Branch and Howard Martin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
This is an appeal from a final judgment in a nisi proceeding on a forfeited recognizance. The only question presented for our consideration is whether the recognizance recites that appellant, Nichols, was charged with a felony; the language of the recognizance in this respect being, "By indictment duly presented and pending in said court, wherein the said C. G. Nichols is accused of the offense of embezzlement over the value of $50.00." Our statute on the subject (article 308, Code Cr. Proc. [Willson's St. Supp. 1897-1900, p. 91, c. 4]) simply requires that the recognizance state, "charged with a felony." Here the statute is not literally followed, but instead there was an attempt to define the offense, and give character to it as a felony. Under our statutes embezzlement is an offense eo nomine. Brown v. State, 28 Tex. App. 65, 11 S. W. 1022. And by statute embezzlement of property of the value of $50 or over is made a felony. Accordingly we hold that embezzlement over the value of $50 is a sufficient description of embezzlement, which the statute characterizes a felony. This question, where the recognizance recited the offense of swindling, was before the court in White v. State, 7 Tex. Ct. Rep. 918, and we there held that "swindling over the value of fifty dollars" named a felony, and that the recognizance was sufficient. We hold that the recognizance was sufficient.
There being no errors in the record, the judgment is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nichols v. State
...followed, it is evident it has not been in this instance. In the companion case of Nichols et al. v. State (decided at present term) 83 S. W. 1113, the bond recited that the accused was charged with embezzlement of the value of over $50. This was held to be a sufficient description of the o......