Joe Oyervides was convicted of aggravated | verily believed that there was not sufficient eviassault, and he appeals. Reversed and cause remanded. Faulk & Monroe, of Austin, for appellant. E. B. Hendricks, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State. MORROW, J. [1, 2] This is a prosecution on complaint and information for the offense of aggravated assault. The complaint was filed July 7, 1917, and fixed the date of the alleged offense in the following language: "On or about the 4th day of July, 191." We think the court was in error in failing to sustain the motion in arrest of judgment based on the insufficiency of this complaint. Complaints of this character have been held insufficient in a number of cases. Collins v. State, 5 Tex, App. 37; Brewer v. State, 5 The judgment of the lower court is reversed, and the cause dismissed. LIGON V. STATE. (No. 4623.) dence against them to secure conviction, the trial court was without discretion to overrule defendant's motion for severance without sufficient reasons, which should be shown in the record. Appeal from El Paso County Court; E. B. McClintock, Judge. E. L. Ligon was convicted of the offense of unlawful assembly, and he appeals. Judgment reversed, and cause remanded. E. B. Hendricks, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State. MORROW, J. Appellant was prosecuted under complaint and information for the offense of unlawful assembly, which is defined in our statute (article 435, P. C.) as follows: three or more persons with intent to aid each "An unlawful assembly' is the meeting of other by violence, or in any other manner either to commit an offense, or illegally to deprive any person of any right, or to disturb him in the enjoyment thereof." There were several counts in the information charging this offense, and in the same information appellant was charged with riot, as defined in article 451, P. C. His conviction was for unlawful assembly, and his punishment fixed at a fine of $100. [1] In the motion to quash the information it is attacked in a number of grounds. Without reviewing the details, we think that the elements of the offense of unlawful assembly were sufficiently set out in the pleading. The reported decisions of this court with reference to this character of prosecution are listed in 39 Cyc. 832, note 4. It is claimed that there was vice in the pleading in that the offense of riot and that of unlawful assembly (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas. Nov. 14, were charged in the same proceeding. Both 1917.) ELECTION BETWEEN OFFENSES CHARGED IN In a prosecution by complaint and informa- 622 (1)-APPLICATION FOR SEVERANCE-POWER TO OVERRULE. were misdemeanors and were chargeable in the same complaint and same information. Alexander v. State, 27 Tex. App. 532, 11 S. W. 628; Warner v. State, 66 Tex. Cr. R. 356, 147 S. W. 265; McKinney v. State, 68 S. W. 176; Vernon's C. C. P. p. 243. [2] There was no error in refusing to require the state to elect as between the offenses charged in the several counts. Gould v. State, 66 Tex. Cr. R. 421, 147 S. W. 247; Tucker v. State, 65 Tex. Cr. R. 627, 145 S. W. 611; Sweeney v. State, 59 Tex. Cr. R. 370, 128 S. W. 390; Bivens v. State, 97 S. W. 87; Thompson v. State, 32 Tex. Cr. R. 265, 22 S. W. 979; Brown v. State, 38 Tex. Cr. R. 597, 44 S. W. 176; Woodward v. State, 58 Tex. Cr. R. 411, 126 S. W. 270; Vernon's C. C. P. p. 247. In view of Code Cr. Proc. 1911, art. 791, making defendants charged with the same offense growing out of the same transaction incompetent witnesses for defendant, and Pen. Code 1911, art. 91, providing that coindictees [3] It was alleged in the information that may claim a severance, and, if any one or more in committing the offense charged appellant be acquitted, he or they may testify in behalf of acted with a number of other persons named the others, defendant, charged with unlawful assembly, having complied with Code Cr. Proc. in the pleading. Appellant made a timely 1911, art. 727, providing the procedure for ob- motion for a severance and for separate taining severance, by averring under oath in trials, to which motion he attached the sepahis motion therefor that the evidence of his codefendants charged by separate information rate informations against several coprinciwould be material to his defense, and that he pals. Article 791, Code Cr. Proc., makes to defendant's statement, and as no such state- In a trial for perjury, the court did not In a prosecution for perjury in testifying at the trial of one for arson, where the indictment for arson, as set out in the indictment, named admission of the testimony of one of the owners the owner of the house which was burned, the that the house was in possession of and rented to the party on trial for arson and another, as alleged, was not error. those who were charged with the same offense growing out of the same transaction incompetent witnesses for appellant. And article 791, supra, and article 91, P. C., provide that where so indicted they may claim a severance, and if any one or more be acquitted, they may testify in behalf of the others. Article 727, C. C. P., provides the procedure for obtaining severance. Appellant's motion was in full compliance with the article last named, averring under oath that the evidence of his codefendants charged by separate information would be material to his defense, and that he verily believed there was not sufficient evidence against them to secure a conviction. The order of trial was suggested in the affidavit, and no opposition filed to it so far as disclosed by the record. There is no reason assigned, so far as the record before To be an accomplice witness a witness must us discloses, for the refusal to grant the mo- and the mere concealment of a crime, or of be criminally connected with the crime on trial, tion to sever. The appellant having com- knowledge that a crime is to be or has been complied with the statute in making his applica-mitted, does not make the one having such tion for a severance, to which the statute entitled him, the trial court was without discretion to overrule it without sufficient reasons, which should be shown in the record. Branch's Ann. P. C. pp. 375, 376, and cases cited. Because of the refusal of the court to grant the order of severance, the judgment of the lower court is reversed, and the cause remanded. HERNDON v. STATE. (No. 4612.) On Motion for Rehearing. 6. CRIMINAL LAW COMPLICE." 507(1)-EVIDENCE-"AC knowledge an accomplice. and Phrases, First and Second Series, Accomplice.] [Ed. Note.-For other definitions, see Words 7. CRIMINAL LAW 5072 ACCOMPLICE'S In a prosecution for perjury in testimony at the trial of one for arson by defendant, who tify against such other, evidence held not to show that a witness against defendant was in any sense an accomplice to the perjury, or to the arson of which defendant had been convicted, so as to make his testimony incredible without corroboration. had been convicted of arson and released to tes Appeal from 'District Court, Young Coun (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas. Nov. 7, ty; Wm. N. Bonner, Judge. 1917. On Motion for Rehearing, 1. PERJURY VARIANCE: Dec. 5, 1917.) 21- INDICTMENT An indictment for perjury committed by defendant, a witness on the trial of one for arson, alleging in a count not submitted that the burned building belonged to R. B. Tidwell and two others, and in the count submitted that it was owned by Virgil Tidwell and two others, where the allegations as a whole showed that the three owners were the same persons, whether one was named "R. V.," "R. B.," or "Virgil," was not misleading or prejudicial. 2. PERJURY 21-INDICTMENT-OMISSION OF WORD "WILLFUL." Under an indictment for perjury committed on the trial of one for arson, the fact that the indictment for arson, as alleged, omitted the word "willful" from the charging part thereof, did not render that indictment fatally defective, so that defendant for that reason could not be convicted of perjury. 3. CRIMINAL LAW 703 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT OF PROSECUTING ATTORNEY REFERENCE TO CONFESSION. In a trial for perjury committed in the trial of one for arson, the prosecuting attorney's preliminary statement to the jury, under Code Cr. Proc. 1911, art. 717, subd. 3, that he expected to prove defendant's written statements, as detailed, was not objectionable on the ground that defendant's statement or confession, made while he was in jail and without warning, could not be introduced against him, as the preliminary statement did not itself introduce evidence as Cle Herndon was convicted of perjury, and he appeals. Affirmed. Arnold & Arnold, of Graham, for appellant. E. B. Hendricks, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State. PRENDERGAST, J. This is an appeal from a conviction for perjury. On the night of February 21, 1916, a house in Graham, in said county, belonging to the Tidwells and occupied at the time as a barber shop by Guy Norred and James Self, was set fire to and burned. Shortly thereafter appellant was indicted, tried, and convicted for arson, the burning of said house. Said Guy Norred was also indicted as an accomplice of appellant in said offense of arson. After appellant, under said conviction, had served a short time in the penitentiary, and before the trial of said Norred, he represented to the officers that he had burned said house at the instance of said Norred, who had agreed to pay him $25 to burn it, and would also testify to other material facts showing Norred was guilty as an accomplice, and that if he was pardoned he would so testify, which was the truth, in the case against Norred. He at the time made a complete written statement, signed by him, in which he stated all the facts, as he claim For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes ed, about the burning, which would clearly show that Norred hired him to burn said building, and that he had burned it at his solicitation, and such state of facts, signed by him, would clearly tend to establish the offense charged against Norred. Thereupon the officers secured a pardon for appellant from his said conviction. Thereafter, upon the trial of Norred on March 12, 1917, he was introduced by the state, after being duly sworn, and testified. Therein he swore the reverse of what he had told the officers were the facts, and among other things he swore that he did not know who set fire to and burned said building; that he did not set fire to and burn it; that he did not, when said building was burning go therefrom in a northerly direction across the railroad tracks of the Chicago, Rock Island & Gulf Railway Company, and did not go in an easterly direction after crossing said tracks to a cemetery, and did not at the said cemetery mount a horse ridden by Bert Taylor, all of which statements by him were false, and known to be so at the time he so swore, and that they were deliberately and willfully sworn to by him at the time. Each of these said alleged false statements by him was made the basis of perjury against him in this case. The testimony was amply sufficient to sustain his conviction on each and all of the alleged false statements made the basis of the charge of perjury against him. The indictment herein was in two counts. The second only was submitted to the jury for a finding. It is therefore unnecessary to state anything about the first. The second, in addition to other matters, fully alleged the said indictment against Norred, his trial thereunder, that appellant was introduced as a witness on that trial and was duly and legally sworn, and that he did deliberately, corruptly, and falsely testify to each of said matters made the basis of perjury herein. 11] Among other averments, the indictment alleged that it became and was a material inquiry as to who set fire to and burned a certain building in Graham on said date of February 21, 1916, "said building being owned by W. I. Tidwell, Horace Tidwell, and Virgil Tidwell, and being used as a barber shop, and being occupied by said Guy Norred and one James Self," and in other places in said indictment, in alleging the owners of said building, the allegation was, "said building being owned by the said W. I. Tidwell, Horace Tidwell, and Virgil Tidwell, and being used as a barber shop by Guy Norred and James Self." In said second count the ownership of said building was alleged each time as being owned by the said three Tidwells, giving the name of each, the same in every instance. Appellant made a motion to quash the indictment; one ground being that the allegation therein was that the house belonged to W. I. Tidwell, R. B. Tidwell, and Horace Tidwell, ers, instead of alleging R. B. Tidwell as one of the owners, it alleged that Virgil Tidwell, with the other two, were the owners. Evidently appellant's motion on this ground applied to the first and not the second count. As stated, the second count only was submitted. The first count was not; hence his motion on that ground was correctly overruled. Another ground to quash was that his name in some places was alleged to be "Cleo" Herndon, and that was not his name, but that "Cle" Herndon was. This ground must also have been based on the first count, and not on the second, because in the second his name is uniformly alleged to be "Cle" Herndon, and his name therein is not alleged as "Cleo" Herndon, However, as to both of these grounds, taking the allegations of the indictment as a whole, it is certain that the three alleged owners were the same persons, whether one of them was named "R. V.,” “R. B.," or "Virgil," because it sufficiently appears from the indictment that in giving their names the word "said" was used, clearly thereby showing that, whether one of the three names was "R. B.," "R. V.,". or "Virgil," the same person, and only he, was meant and intended, and appellant could in no way have been misled or prejudiced thereby. 1 Branch's An. P. C. § 460, and cases there cited by him. See, also, 1 Branch's An. P. C. p. 242, § 467, and cases there cited. See, also, 2 Vernon's Crim. Statutes, p. 231, and cases there cited. [2] Said second count, among other things, alleged what the said indictment against Guy Norred charged. Another ground of appellant's motion to quash is that the indictment against Norred, as alleged herein, omitted the word "willful" from the charging part thereof; and he claims because thereof the indictment therein was fatally defective, and that appellant because thereof could not be convicted of perjury in the trial of that cause. This question has been expressly and repeatedly correctly held against appellant. Kelley v. State, 51 Tex. Cr. R. 507, 103 S. W. 189; Anderson v. State, 24 Tex. App. 705, 7 S. W. 40; Cordway v. State, 25 Tex. App. 405, 8 S. W. 670; Smith v. State, 31 Tex. Cr. R. 315, 20 S. W. 707; Ball v. United States, 163 U. S. 662, 16 Sup. Ct. 1192, 41 L. Ed. 300; State v. Brown, 128 Iowa, 24, 102 N. W. 799; State v. Rowell, 72 Vt. 28, 47 Atl. 111, 82 Am. St. Rep. 918; State v. Brown, 68 N. H. 200, 38 Atl. 731. [3] Article 717, subd. 3, C. C. P., expressly authorizes the prosecuting attorney preliminarily to state to the jury the nature of the accusation against appellant and the facts which are expected to be proved by the state in support thereof. The district attorney, in this case, as authorized by this statute, made such a statement to the jury, and among other things he told them that he expected to prove the written statements made by 1 were, in substance, that he committed the said crime of arson, and that said Norred employed him to burn said house, and that he had, before he burned the house, told Bert Taylor that he was going to burn it, and to wait for him at said graveyard, and that after he burned the house he gave his route therefrom, and where Bert Taylor was at the graveyard, and that he got on Taylor's horse and went to his house, some seven miles in the country, that night, and returned to Graham the next morning, and that while going home with Taylor that night he told him that he had burned the house and that Norred had promised to give him $25 therefor. Appellant objected to the district attorney making this statement of what he expected to prove, because said purported confession, or statement signed by appellant, was made while he was in custody and in jail, not warned, etc., and that it therefore could not be introduced in evidence against him, and that the district attorney's recollection of what was stated therein was improper; that the original itself would be the best evidence thereof. As stated, this was a mere preliminary statement by the district attorney of what he expected to prove. He was not then introducing evidence, nor said purported statement signed by appellant. The record discloses that no such paper was ever introduced in evidence on the trial, and apparently none such was ever offered. Appellant's objections were mere objections. They were not approved by the judge as a statement of facts. As the district attorney stated what he expected to prove, if, as a matter of fact, he failed to prove it on the trial, it would have been against the state and in favor of the appellant. The bill does not show that the district attorney said he was going to introduce that statement by appellant. We think the bill shows no reversible error. Himmelfarb v. State, 76 Tex. Cr. R. 178, 174 S. W. 586. The testimony, by several witnesses who were at the fire while the building was burned, was that they smelled oil very strongly; that the house and the barber furniture and towels of said Norred and Self were not entirely consumed; that a day or two, perhaps the second day, after the fire, when the burned stuff was being moved, these towels were found in said barber shop saturated with oil. The court did not err in permitting some of the witnesses to testify that they found, among the towels used by said barbers therein, some saturated with oil. This testimony was admissible. The judgment is affirmed. On Motion for Rehearing. [6] The sole ground set up for rehearing is that the state's witness Bert Taylor was an accomplice, and that because thereof appellant could not be convicted on his testimony, even though properly corroborated by other testimony, because he was not a credible witness. No such ground was urged in the lower court. Appellant did not object to the court's charge because of its failure to charge that said witness was an accomplice, or that he had to be corroborated; nor did he ask any special charge submitting any such issue or anything with reference thereto. Mr. Branch, in his 1 An. P. C. p. 360 et seq., lays down correct propositions supported by numerous authorities. One is that, in order to be an accomplice witness, such witness must be criminally connected with the crime on trial (section 702). Again he says: "The mere concealment of a crime, or the mere concealment of knowledge that a crime is to be or has been committed, does not make the person having such knowledge an accomplice"citing a large number of cases (section 705). [7] No evidence in this case shows, or tends to show, that said witness Taylor was a party in any sense to the perjury of which appellant was convicted, nor does it show his participation in any way with the arson of which appellant was originally convicted. as explained in the original opinion. The testimony simply shows that said witness swore that appellant, before the arson was committed, told him he was going to burn the house, and that after he had burned it he told him he had done so. Before appel[4] The court did not err in permitting Mr. lant burned the house he told said witness, Hankerson, the court reporter, to testify, both in substance, that he wanted to go home with from his recollection and from his stenogra-him that night, and asked him to wait for phic notes taken at the time, what appellant swore on the Norred trial. 1 Branch's An. P. C. p. 51, where the rule is stated and the The court did not err in admitting in evidence the indictment against said Norred, over his objection, as to the appellant's name and the names of the owners of said house. This question is discussed above. authorities collated. [5] Neither did the court err in permitting one of the joint owners, Virgil Tidwell, to testify that the house burned was in the possession of, and rented to, said Norred and Self. His objection is that there was no allegation to that effect. The indictment shows that the house was repeatedly alleged to have been in the possession of said Norred and Self. him at a given point, where he would later meet him and go home with him. Said witness did wait for him at the point indicated: appellant met him there, and went some miles in the country to his home with him, and stayed the balance of that night; they both returning to Graham the next morning. This did not make him an accessory. In other words, the testimony shows that said witness was not an accomplice of appellant to either arson or the perjury, of which he was convicted in this case. His knowledge that appellant was going to commit arson, and did afterwards do so, would in no sense make him an accomplice, so as to make him an incredible witness in law. The motion is overruled. 10. APPEAL AND ERROR 1073(1)—HARMLESS ERROR-PROVISIONS IN JUDGMENT. Where in an action against a corporation and an indorser on its note judgment was had against both, a provision of the judgment that the indorser should have a judgment against the corporation for any amount paid on judgment, without prejudice as to any claim of the corpo CARTER-MULLALY TRANSFER CO. et al. ration against him, if erroneous, was harmless. v. ROBERTSON et al. (No. 7427.) (Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Galveston. Oct. 16, 1917. Rehearing Denied. Nov. 8, 1917.) 1. BANKRUPTCY 20-STATE COURTS-RECEIVERS JURISDICTION. Where a petition in bankruptcy is filed within four months of appointment of a receiver by a state court, when the adjudication in bankruptcy occurs, the bankruptcy court succeeds the state court and the trustee takes over the prop erty. 2. BANKRUPTCY 152-TAKING OVER PROPERTY OF RECEIVERSHIP-TITLE. When a trustee in bankruptcy takes over property in hands of a state receiver, as far as title to property is concerned, the adjudication relates back to the date of the filing of the petition, and makes subject to review only actions of the receiver or the state court appointing him. 3. APPEAL AND ERROR 843(1) — MATTERS REVIEWABLE-MOOT QUESTIONS. On appeal from a judgment of a state court appointing a receiver, the assignments of error relating to the appointment of the receiver become moot questions, where a petition in bankruptcy has been filed within four months, and they will not be reviewed. 4. APPEAL AND ERROR OF ERRORS RULES. 743(1)—ASSIGNMENT SAVING OBJECTIONS - COURT Violation of rule 31 of the Rules for the Courts of Civil Appeals (142 S. W. xiii), by not giving pages of the record or brief in the statement of proceedings following assignments of error, prevents consideration of such assign ments. Assignments of error relating to errors in the admission or rejection of evidence cannot be reviewed, where the statements subjoined do not show that the issues were saved by bill of exceptions. 7. RECEIVERS 3-DOMICILE OF CORPORATION-WHAT COURT MAY APPOINT. Appeal from District Court, Galveston County; Clay S. Briggs, Judge. Suit by J. A. Robertson against the Carter-Mullaly Transfer Company, H. E. Hildebrand, and John M. Roberts. Judgment for plaintiff, and the defendants, except the last mentioned, appeal. Affirmed. A. J. Bell, of San Antonio, and Jas. B. & Chas. J. Stubbs, of Galveston, for appellants. Cobbs & Cobbs, of San Antonio, and Terry, Cavin & Mills, of Galveston, for appellees. GRAVES, J. This appeal is prosecuted by Carter-Mullaly Transfer Company, a corporation, whose domicile and principal office was in Bexar county, Tex., and H. E. Hildebrand, from a joint and several judgment for $31,741.71, obtained in the trial court by appellee, Robertson, against them, together with another, John M. Roberts. neither answered in the suit, nor appealed from the judgment. Roberts The amount of the judgment represented the balance found by the court to be due upon two notes given by the corporation to appellee, Robertson, certain certificates of stock of the corporation being attached thereto as collateral, which by their terms were payable in Galveston county, and which had been indorsed by the named individuals, H. E. Hildebrand and John M. Roberts, who were president and secretary treasurer, respectively, of the corporation. Prior to rendition of the judgment—indeed, on the filing of the petition therefor-the court had, upon ex parte application of appellee, appointed in Galveston county a receiver for the corporation. By agreement of all the parties, the cause was tried before the court without a jury, resulting in the judgment above mentioned, the decree awarding appellee foreclosure of his lien upon the stock so held as collateral In a straight suit on a note expressly pay- to his notes, and granting appellant Hildeable in the county of suit, a receiver may be ap-brand a like judgment over against the corpointed as an ancillary remedy, although the domicile of the defendant, a corporation, is in poration, in event appellee should collect another county. the amount of his judgment against the cor8. CONTINUANCE 24-MOTION FOR CONTIN-poration out of Hildebrand's property, with UANCE-ABUSE OF DISCRETION. the further recitation, however, that HildeWhere a continuance to obtain evidence was denied, there was no abuse of discretion, where brand's judgment over against it should in all the material facts alleged in the motion no way preclude or prevent the corporation as a basis for continuance were proved by other from thereafter asserting and prosecuting testimony. 9. CORPORATIONS 187(1) — ULTRA VIRES any other claims or causes of action not in this suit litigated it might have against ACTS-ESTOPPEL. him; while immediate execution was awarded appellee against the individuals, Hildebrand and Roberts, it was further ordered that no present execution issue against the corporation in favor of either appellee or Where a corporation has borrowed money and used it to advantage for three years, it is estopped to set up that the loan was for an unlawful purpose and ultra vires, especially where there is a presumed finding that the lender did not know of the unlawful use. |