28 S.W. 469 | Tex. Crim. App. | 1894
The conviction was for hog theft. The indictment charged the value of the hog to be "$3." A motion to quash was made, because the value was not written in "plain and intelligible words," as required by the statute. Code Crim. Proc. art. 420, subdiv. 7. Is the figure (3) three prefixed by the dollar mark "plain and intelligible words" within the purview of the statute? We think sufficiently so. "An indictment for any offense against the penal laws of this State shall be deemed sufficient, which charges the commission of the offense in ordinary and concise language in such manner as to enable a person of common understanding to know what is meant, and with that degree of certainty that will give the defendant notice of the particular offense with which he is charged, and enable the court on conviction to pronounce the proper judgment * * *." Code Crim. Proc., art. 428a. The statutory ingredients of the offense must be set out in the indictment, and if it be sufficient to "enable the accused to plead the judgment that may be given upon it in bar of any prosecution for the same offense," the indictment will be valid.
It is now too well settled, we think, to be questioned, that Arabic numerals, and all well defined and well understood abbreviations, may be used in indictments without rendering them defective. Brown v. The State, 16 Texas Crim. App., 245; The State v. Reed,
The judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Judges all present and concurring. *573