Citations
- 64 S.W.2d 795
Full opinion text
CHRISTIAN, Judge.
The offense is swindling; the punishment, a fine of $1.
The property alleged to have been acquired by appellant is described in the complaint and information as one pair of shoes. The value of the shoes is not alleged. It is the rule in theft cases that when the value of the property affects the penalty it must be alleged. Branch’s Annotated Penal Code, § 2487; Sheppard v. State, 1 Tex. App. 522, 28 Am. Rep. 422; Pittman v. State, 14 Tex. App. 576; Ellison v. State, 25 Tex. App. 328, 8 S. W. 462. The rule in theft eases, as to alleging value, applies in swindling eases. Mathis v. State, 113 Tex. Cr. R. 164, 18 S.W.(2d) 920; Trigg v. State, 117 Tex. Cr. R. 536, 34 S.W.(2d) 878; Roberts v. State, 112 Tex. Cr. R. 15, 13 S.W.(2d) 863. The defect is fundamental. Roberts v. State, supra.
The judgment is reversed, and the prosecution ordered dismissed.
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.