O'Bryan v. State

Citations

• 27 Tex. Ct. App. 339
• 11 S.W. 443
• 1889 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 43

Syllabus

<p>1. Indictment—Terms Construed.—“Writing” or “written,” as those terms are, used in the statutes of this State, include “printing” or “printed”; and-it is not a valid objection to an indictment that it is partly written and partly printed.</p> <p>2. Same—False Swearing—Perjury.—The affidavit of a public free school teacher to the voucher for his salary is “required by law,” and therefore, if false, is matter assignable for perjury, and not for the distinct offense of false swearing.</p> <p>S. A County Judge is an officer authorized to take affidavits in the body of his county.</p> <p>Charge op the Court—Verdict—Practice in the Court op Appeals.—In its preliminary statement to the jury the charge of the court designates the offense on trial as “false swearing,” but subsequently designates it as perjury—the offense charged in the indictment. The verdict was general, and found the defendant “guilty,” and assessed his penalty at five years in the penitentiary, the minimum penalty for perjury, and the maximum penalty for false swearing. The judgment of the court on the verdict declares the defendant “guilty of false swearing as found by the jury,” but the final judgment and sentence declare that he has been “adjudged guilty of perjury.” The State moves this court to reform the judgment and sentence so as to conform them to the verdict, maintaining that, as the verdict is general, it responds to the indictment, which charges perjury. But held that though this court, in cases wherein the verdict is certain, will exercise its power to conform the judgment or sentence, or both, thereto, it will not do so in cases wherein, as in this ease, there is any uncertainty about the import of the verdict,</p>