Trigg v. State, 13795.

• Decision Date: 21 January 1931
• Docket Number: No. 13795.,13795.
• Citation: 34 S.W.2d 878
• Parties: TRIGG v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

34 S.W.2d 878

TRIGG v. STATE.

No. 13795.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

January 21, 1931.

Commissioners' Decision.

Appeal from Wilbarger County Court; J. V. Townsend, Judge.

Leon Trigg was convicted of swindling, and he appeals.

Judgment reversed, and prosecution dismissed.

Killough & Dotson, of Vernon, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.

CALHOUN, J.

Offense, swindling; punishment, thirty days in jail.

The information in this case is as follows:

"In the name and by the Authority of the State of Texas:

"I, M. G. Poteet, assistant County Attorney of the County of Wilbarger, State aforesaid, in behalf of said State, presents in the County Court of said County, at the February Term, 1930 of said Court that Leon Triggs on or about the 21st day of Sept. A D 1929, and before the making and filing of this Information, in the County of Wilbarger, State of Texas, devising and intending to unlawfully acquire property, to-wit:

"Groceries, the amount and kind unknown, and the balance in cash of the value of Fifteen and 8/100 dollars, did then and there with intent to defraud, obtain said property, the same then and there being the personal property of C. Pollan with the further intent to appropriate the same when so acquired to the use of him, the aforesaid defendant, and the same so obtained from said owner by the aforesaid defendant by the means of giving and drawing a certain check of the tenor following:

                "`88-286      Vernon, Texas, 9—21—1929
                

"`The First State Bank Pay to the order of Pollan Gro. $15.08 Fifteen Dollars 8/cents Dollars.

                                             "`Leon Triggs'
                

and which check was then and there so given and drawn by the aforesaid defendant and the aforesaid defendant did then and there deliver said check to said owner in exchange for said property which was then and there delivered to the aforesaid defendant by said owner, and said owner did then and there part with the title and possession of said property to the aforesaid defendant in consideration of the said delivery of said check. Whereas, in truth and in fact the aforesaid defendant at the time of so giving and drawing said check did not have with said bank sufficient funds to pay said check and then and there had no good reason to believe that said check would be paid by said bank when the same would be, in the ordinary course of business presented to said bank for payment, and the said check was, in due course of business, presented to said bank, and payment of the same was refused for want of sufficient funds of said drawer, and more than fifteen days have elapsed since presentation was made, and the maker still fails and refuses to make the said check good, contrary to the...