
    MACUMBER v. STATE.
    (No. 4741.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Dec. 5, 1917.)
    Criminal Law <©=>211(1) — Complaint—Date of Offense — 'Uncertainty in Allegation.
    A complaint, charging the date of the offense as “on or about the third day of June, 197,” there being no other averments to aid it with reference to the date, left the date uncertain, and the court erred in overruling defendant’s motion in arrest of judgment, although the information did not carry forward the defect.
    Appeal from Foard County Court; G. L. Burk, Judge.
    C. Macumber was convicted of an aggravated assault, and appeals.
    Reversed, and cause dismissed.
    E. B. Hendricks, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   MORROW, J.

This appeal is from a conviction for aggravated assault, prosecuted by complaint and information.

The complaint charges the date of the offense as follows: “On or about the third day of ’.June, 197,” etc. There are no other averments in the complaint which aid it with reference to the date of the alleged offense. In Brewer v. State, 5 Tex. App. 248, Blake v. State, 3 Tex. App. 149, Collins v. State, 5 Tex. App. 37, and McCoy v. State, 43 Tex. Cr. R. 607, 68 S. W. 686, pleading containing the same defect was held so defective as to require the court to sustain the motion in arrest of judgment. The averment leaves the alleged date of the offense uncertain. Complaint is made that the court erred in overruling appellant’s motion in arrest of judgment, and, following the rule announced in the authorities mentioned, this contention must be sustained; this though the information did not cafry forward the defect. It could not be thus cured under the decisions of this state. Drummond v. State, 4 Tex. App. 150; Goddard v. State, 14 Tex. App. 566; Huff v. State, 23 Tex. App. 293, 4 S. W. 890; Whitley v. State, 56 S. W. 69.

The judgment of the lower court is reversed, and the cause dismissed.  