Opinion
No. 13936.
Delivered January 26, 1931. Rehearing Denied March 4, 1931.
1. — Swindling — Procedure.
Where there are neither statement of facts nor bills of exception and no fundamental error appearing, an affirmance is ordered.
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.2. — Swindling — Indictment.
In prosecution for swindling, an indictment alleging the party swindled to be a corporation is not fundamentally defective, since, under the law, a corporation can be the victim of swindling.
Appeal from the District Court of Potter County. Tried below before the Hon. Henry S. Bishop, Judge.
Appeal from a conviction for swindling in an amount of less than $50; penalty, confinement in the county jail for ninety days.
Affirmed.
The opinion states the case.
R. M. Gardner, of Amarillo, for appellant.
Lloyd W. Davidson, State's Attorney, of Austin, for the State.
The conviction is for swindling in an amount of less than fifty dollars; penalty, confinement in the county jail for a period of ninety days.
The indictment appears regular. The record is before us without statement of facts and bills of exception. No fundamental error has been perceived.
The judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.
Appellant moves for a rehearing herein, asserting that the indictment is fundamentally defective. We have again examined the indictment. The contention of appellant seems to be based on the proposition that in a swindling case, and where the party swindled is alleged to be a corporation, this could not be sufficient to constitute swindling, for a corporation is not an individual person. We can not agree to the contention. A corporation can be the victim of swindling. Nasets v. State (Texas Crim. App.), 32 S.W. 698; Faulk v. State, 38 Tex. Crim. 78, 41 S.W. 616; Spurlock v. State, 45 Tex. Crim. 284, 77 S.W. 447. We think the indictment is sufficient.
The motion for rehearing will be overruled.
Overruled.