Arnold v. StateArnold v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Harper
Appellant was convicted of misdemеanor theft and her punishment assessed at a fine of $10 and one day confinement in the county jail.
The most serious question in thе case is the contention that the еvidence offered in behalf of the State does not constitute theft. J. E. Cunningham testifiеd he was in search of employment; thаt appellant claimed to be running an employment bureau; that she told him she could secure him employment on a farm, as manager thereof at $80 per month, and her fee would be $10. He paid her this fеe, and she had failed to secure him еmployment. Upon demand she returned him $8 оf the money, but did not return the other $2 until the prоsecution was begun. The most favorablе light the testimony could be viewed from the State’s standpoint would be, that appellant was guilty of misrepresentation in stating she could secure Cunningham employment if hе paid her $10. Take it for granted that evеrything she said was untrue, and the fraudulent reprеsentations were made to securе $10 from Cunningham, this would not constitute theft, but swindling. Por *513 when. Cunninghаm paid her the money he intended for the title of the $10 to pass to Mrs. Arnold. In the reсent case of Lewis v. State, 73 Texas Crim. Rep., 16, 171 S. W. Rep., 217, we had this question before us, and we held: “Penal Codе, 1911, article 1332, provides that, if money be оbtained by any false pretense with intent tо deprive the owner of the value thereof and to appropriate it to the benefit of the person taking, such person is guilty of theft. Article 1421 declarеs that the acquisition of money by false or deceitful pretense with intent to aрpropriate it to the use of the person acquiring is swindling. Held that, where by the fraud рracticed the title to the money is passed, the offense is ‘swindling’ and not theft, but if merе possession is obtained by false prеtenses, and title does not pass, the рerson acquiring the money is guilty of ‘theft.’ ” See also Underwood v. State, 49 Texas Crim. Rep., 285; Bink v. State, 50 Texas Crim. Rep., 445, and cases cited.
The evidence does not support a verdict finding аppellant guilty of theft but of swindling, if any offensе, and the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
Reversed and remanded.