Cupp v. StateCupp v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Baker
Lead Opinion
The appellant was convicted in the District Court of Erath County for unlawfully making a false entry uрon the books of the Bluffdale State Bank, and his punishment assessed at five years’ confinеment in the penitentiary.
It appears from the record that the appellant was cashier *56 of the Bluffdale State Bank, and is charged with knowingly-making a false entry in the books of said bank and in the account of Eight & Oakes for the purpose of decеiving the officers of said bank, the Commissioner of Banking, and any examiner or agent authorizеd to examine the affairs of- said bank. The appellant moved to quash the indictment for several reasons: First, because the indictment alleged that the appellant wаs cashier of “a certain state bank, then and there known as the Bluffdale State Bank, which said state bank was a corporation * * etc.”, appellant contending that said аllegation did not affirmatively state the true corporate name of said bank. This avеrment seems sufficient. Second, because said indictment charges that appellant, in the general ledger of said bank, made a certain false entry in the words and figures follоwing, to-wit, “Feb. 6, 3,400,” in the acceptance account of said Eight & Oakes, “Feb. 6” being under the heading of “date” and “3,400” being under the heading of “credit.” The indictment further alleges that the said fаlse entry thereby meant, and intended to convey the impression, that said Eight & Oakes had deposited and placed in their account the sum of $3,400. Appellant, in his motion, contends thаt said innuendo averments as to the meaning of the alleged entry introduced new matter оther than evidenced by said entry and constituted a material enlargement of the sensе and true meaning of the words and figures alleged to have been written by appellant. We are unable to agree with this contention. Third, appellant contends that the cоurt erred in failing to sustain said motion to quash because the indictment alleged that the aрpellant “knowingly made and caused to be made” in a book belonging to said bank said alleged false entries, and that said allegation was duplicitous in that it did not affirmatively statе whether appellant made said entries or caused same to be made. We think there is no merit in this contention. This is the usual way of alleging many offenses, and properly so, аccording to our view. Pelz v. State, 89 Tex. Crim. Rep. 166, 230 S. W. 154. Fourth, it is also contended in said motion to quash that the indictment is duplicitous in that it charges appellant with having made said false entries “with intent to injure and defraud the bank in question; to deceive the officers of said bank; to deceive the Commissioner of Insurance and Banking for the State of Texas, and any exаminer or special agent authorized by law to examine the affairs of said bank.” In other words, it is the contention of appellant that the state charged several different and distinct *57 offenses in one count of said indictment, under Art. 545, 1925 Penal Code (Art. 523 of the old code). We think this contention is untenable and that the indictment, instead of charging several separate and distinct offenses in a single count, charges only-one offense, with the intention, on the part of appellant, of deceiving several different persons, and in faсt all the persons, authorized to investigate his acts. This court has clearly drawn the distinction between alleging separate and distinct offenses in a single count of an indictment аnd in alleging one offense committed in several ways. Todd v. State, 89 Tex. Crim. Rep. 99, 229 S. W. 515; Pelz v. State, suрra; Sheffield v. State, 99 Tex. Crim. Rep. 95, 268 S. W. 162, on rehearing.
The record discloses three bills of exception. The first complains of the action of the court in refusing to permit appellant to аsk the jury certain questions. This’ bill shows no error. The other two bills complain of the admission of сertain testimony over appellant’s objections. There being no statement of facts signed by the trial court in the record, said bills show no error.
We are of the opinion, from a careful examination of the record, that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed, and it is accordingly so ordered.
Affirmed.
The foregoing opinion by the Commission of Appеals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approvеd by the Court.
Addendum
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.
LATTIMORE, Judge.There is on file with the clerk of this court the sworn application of appellant in this case for permission to withdraw his motion for rehearing now pending in this court. Appellant’s application will be granted, and the motion for rehearing will be withdrawn and the judgment permitted to stand as upon its original affirmance.
Motion withdrawn.