Mayers v. State

85 S.W. 802, 47 Tex. Crim. 624, 1905 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 61
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas·Decided February 22, 1905·No. No. 3245.·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

*625 HENDERSON, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of forgery, and his punishment assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for a term of two years; hence this appeal. An examination of the indictment discloses that it is insufficient. The pleader attempted to set out the alleged forged instrument according to its purport and tenor. In the purport clause the instrument is charged to be the act of Gay Simpson. When the instrument is set out according to its tenor, it appears to be signed by Mayers and Simpson. This is a variance, according to the authorities, between the purport and tenor clauses, and is fatal to the indictment. Campbell v. State, 32 S. W. Rep., 899; Fite v. State, 34 S. W. Rep., 921; Stephens v. State, 37 S. W. Rep., 425; Gibbons v. State, 37 S. W. Rep., 861; Crayton v. State, 7 Texas Ct. Rep., 973. It is not necessary to discuss other propositions. Because the indictment is insufficient, the judgment is reversed and the prosecution ordered dismissed.

Reversed and dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mayers v. State, 85 S.W. 802, 47 Tex. Crim. 624, 1905 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 61 (Tex. 1905).

85 S.W. 802 (Mayers v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

The People v. Nickols
63 N.E.2d 759 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1945)
Whitehead v. State
279 S.W. 850 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1926)
Burkhalter v. State
212 S.W. 163 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1919)
Vick v. State
159 S.W. 50 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1913)
Winn v. State
113 S.W. 918 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1908)
Casey v. State
97 S.W. 496 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1906)