Wells v. State

Citations

• 4 Tex. Ct. App. 20

Syllabus

<p>1. Variance. —Indictment for theft designated the owner of the stolen property as “one Chin Chan, a Chinaman (a better description of whose name cannot be given by the grand jury),” and subsequently mentioned him as the “ said Chin Chang.” Held, that the variance between the appellations is not material.</p> <p>2. Indictment. — The certainty required in an indictment is such certainty as will enable the accused to plead the judgment rendered on it in bar of another prosecution for the same offense.</p> <p>3. Same — Description of Stolen Money—as,“two ten-dollar gold pieces, United States coin, of the value and denomination of ten dollars each; one ten-dollar United States currency note, of the value and denomination of ten dollars; one ten-dollar United States national bank-note, of the value and denomination of ten dollars ” — is a good and sufficient description.</p> <p>4. Theft. —Mote a state of facts held to constitute the accused a principal offender, though not actually present when the theft was committed by his confederate. Welsh v. The State, 3 Texas Ct. App. 413, cited with approval on this subject.</p>