Marwilsky v. State

Citations

• 9 Tex. Ct. App. 377

Syllabus

<p>1. Swindling — Evidence — Variance. — Appellant was convicted of swindling by means of false pretence, upon an information which charged that he and another obtained nine dollars from one H. on the false pretence that H. was indebted to them in that sum of money. The entire proof showed that the amount claimed and obtained by the accused was six dollars, instead of nine as alleged. Meld, that the evidence does not correspond with the allegation, nor suffice to support the conviction.</p> <p>2. Evidence. — Acts done or declarations made by, one conspirator after the consummation of the unlawful enterprise are not evidence against another conspirator.</p> <p>8. Same — Predicate. — To make one defendant amenable for the acts or declarations of his co-defendant, there must be proof of complicity between them. Note the declaration of the defendant relied on for this purpose in the present case, but held to be irrelevant.</p> <p>4. Pleading. —If matter of inducement be pleaded, it should not be blended with the allegations charging the gist of the offence; and those allegations should be made positively, and not merely by way of inference or recital.</p>