
    WRIGHT v. STATE.
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    April 16, 1913.)
    1. Criminal Law (§ 1105) — Appeal—Transcript.
    A transcript, not certified by the ofiieial stenographer, not signed by the attorneys who tried the case, and not approved by the trial jud_ge, cannot be considered on appeal for any purpose.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2887-2889; Dec. Dig. § 1105.]
    2. Criminal Law (§ 1144) — Review—Presumptions — Instructions.
    In the absence of record evidence, the court must presume that the trial judge charged the law, and all the law, applicable to the facts, and that there was no error in refusing the special charges requested.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2736-2764, 2766-2771, 2774-2781, 2901, 3016-3037; Dec. Dig. § 1144.]
    3. Indictment and Information (§ 125) — Duplicity — Means of Committing Offense.
    An indictment for a theft may charge it to have been accomplished in both the ways the statute states the offense can be committed.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Indictment and Information, Cent. Dig. §§ 334-400; Dec. Dig. § 125.]
    4. Indictment and Information (§ 79) -■ Sufficiency — Language — Mistake in Spelling.
    An indictment for theft from the person of property described as $20 “in monet,” the word “monet” being a clerical or typographical error intended for “money,” is an inaccuracy not fatal to the indictment.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Indictment and Information, Cent. Dig. §§ 209-214; Dec. Dig. § 79.]
    Appeal from District Court, Tarrant County ; R. H. Buck, Judge.
    A. W. Wright was convicted of theft, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
    
      
      For other oases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep’r Indexes
    
   HARPER, J.

Appellant was prosecuted and convicted of theft from the person, and his punishment assessed at two years’ confinement in the penitentiary.

There is with the record what purports to be a transcript of the notes of the official reporter in question and answer form. It is not certified by the stenographer, is not signed by the attorneys who tried the case, neither is it approved by the trial judge, and under such circumstances it cannot be considered for any purpose. And as we must conclude, in the absence of the evidence, that the judge charged the law, and all the law, applicable to the facts, we must presume there was no error in refusing the special charges requested, and the only matter presented in a way we can review it is the motion in arrest of judgment on account of alleged defects in the indictment.

The indictment charges the theft to have been accomplished in both ways the statute states the offense can be committed. This is permissible under our system of pleading. Steele v. State, 46 Tex. Cr. R. 338, 81 S. W. 962; Thomas v. State, 51 Tex. Cr. R. 333, 101 S. W. 797.

In alleging the property stolen, it is alleged to be “twenty dollars in monet of the value of twenty .dollars”; the word “monet” being used where it was intended to say “money.” In no standard dictionary do we find any such word as “monet,” and it is apparent that it is but a clerical or typographical error where the letter “t” is used in the word where “y” was intended, and such inaccuracies have never been held to be fatal to an indictment.

The judgment is affirmed.  