White v. State

Citations

• 3 Tex. Ct. App. 605

Syllabus

<p>1. Indictment — Certainty. — Though generally sufficient to describe an offense in the language of the act creating it, there are cases in which more particularity is requisite, either from the obvious intention of the Legislature, or from the application of known principles of law.</p> <p>2. Same.—When a written instrument enters into an offense as a part or basis thereof, or when its proper construction is material, the instrument should, as a general rule, be set out in the indictment.</p> <p>3. Swindling by False Pretense.—An indictment for swindling by false pretense should positively and clearly aver that it was by means of the alleged false pretense the swindle was effected.</p> <p>4. Same.—Indictment alleged that one D. was indebted to the city of Gr. for occupation tax, and charged that the accused falsely pretended to him that he was authorized to collect the occupation taxes due the city, etc. Held, that the indictment should have alleged the occupation on account of which D. owed the tax.</p> <p>5. Same. — The indictment further failed to allege that the money obtained by the accused from D. was for the tax which the former pretended to have authority to collect, and which the latter was indebted to the city. Held, an omission fatal to the indictment. See the opinion m extenso for the averments necessary in indictments of this nature.</p>