Rushing v. State

127 S.W.2d 893

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Rushing v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 139 Tex. Crim. 502 →

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas·Decided March 22, 1939·No. No. 20284·Published

Opinion

KRUEGER, Judge.

Conviction is for passing a forged instrument; punishment is assessed at two years’ confinement in the state penitentiary.

[894]*894The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exceptions. The indictment is sufficient to charge the offense, and procedural matters appear to be in due order.

The judgment is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the- Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.

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

KRUEGER, Judge.

Conviction is for passing a forged instrument; punishment is assessed at two years’ confinement in the state penitentiary.

[894]*894The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exceptions. The indictment is sufficient to charge the offense, and procedural matters appear to be in due order.

The judgment is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the- Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.

Rushing v. State, 127 S.W.2d 893 (Tex. 1939).

Pincite

127 S.W.2d 893 (Rushing v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.