
    DUFFIELD v. STATE.
    (No. 9689.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Oct. 14, 1925.
    Rehearing Denied April 14, 1926.)
    Automobiles &wkey;35l — Information charging removal of casing from motor vehicle held sufficient (Vernon’s Ann. Pen. Code 1916, art. 1259b [Pen. Code 1925, art. 1346]).
    Exception to information under Vernon’s Ann. Pen. Code 1916, art. 1259b (Pen. Code 1925, art. 1346), charging removal of casing from motor vehicle, that information failed to allege that casing was attached to or part of automobile, that it was necessary to use thereof, and as to its value or purpose for which it was taken, or that taking was fraudulent and for purpose of conversion, held properly overruled.
    Commissioners’ Decision.
    Appeal from Tarrant County Court, at Daw; P. W. Seward, Judge.
    Fred A. Duffield was convicted of removing casing from a motor vehicle, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Charlie Mays, of Fort Worth, for appellant.
    Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., of Austin, and Nat Gentry, Jr., Asst. State’s Atty., of Tyler, for the State.
   BAKER, J.

The appellant was charged in the county court at law No. 1 of Tarrant county by information with unlawfully and maliciously moving an automobile casing from a motor vehicle, an automobile, owned by George Henry, and without the consent of the owner thereof, convicted, and his punishment assessed at six months’ confinement in the county jail.

The record is before us without a statement of facts and with one bill of exception, complaining of the action of the court in refusing to quash the information and complaint, for the reason that same failed to allege that the easing was an attachment to said automobile and because it failed to allege that same was a part of said automobile and that it was necessary in the use thereof, and failed to allege any value of the article taken, or the purpose for which it was taken, and failed to allege that it was fraudulent and for the purpose of converting same to the use of the defendant. The article under which appellant was charged and convicted being Vernon’s P. C. art. 1259b, art. 1346, 1925 Codification Statutes, states:

“Whosoever shall maliciously or willfully and without authority from the owner unlawfully remove from any motor vehicle or bicycle any portion of the running or steering gear, * * * or * * * casing, * * * shall be fined,” etc.

After a careful examination of the record and said bill of exception, we think the information and complaint correctly alleged the offense charged, and overrule appellant’s contention as to the insufficiency of same. The record' further discloses that the court properly applied the law applicable to this offense, and, there being no statement of facts in the case, the record fails to show any error in the trial thereof, and the judgment of the trial court is accordingly affirmed.

PER OURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court.

On Motion for Rehearing.

DATTIMORB, J.

Appellant submits his motion on the proposition that article 1259b, Vernon’s 1916 P. C., under which this prosecution was had, was repealed by the act of the 1917 Legislature, which is article 1259bb, Vernon’s Complete Texas Statutes 1920 or Vernon’s Ann. Pen. Code Supp. 1918. We have discussed this proposition in cause No. 9492, Raymond Acton v. State, 282 S. W. 805, opinion this day handed down, and are of opinion appellant’s contention is without merit, and the motion for rehearing will accordingly be overruled.  