
    WILLIAMS v. STATE.
    (No. 9690.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Dec. 16, 1925.)
    Parent and child &wkey;>l7(6) — Conviction of child desertion requires proof that children are under 16 years.
    To convict of child desertion, under Pen. Code 1925, art. 602, it is essential that there be proof that children are under 16 years of age, and where record shows no such evidence judgment will be reversed.
    Appeal from Tarrant County Court at Law No. 1;, P. W. Seward, judge.
    T. A. Williams was convicted of wife and child desertion, and he appeals.
    Reversed.
    Mays & 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.
   MORROW, P. J.

The offense is wife and child desertion; punishment fixed at confinement in jail for one year. '

By information, appellant was charged with the desertion of his wife, Lula Williams, and his children, Bessie, Florence, Roy, Woodrow, Edvin, and Jewell, all of said children charged to have been under the age of 16 years. Only the second count was submitted to the jury.

The testimony of the wife and the appellant is in such conflict as presents an issue of fact touching a willful desertion and nonsupport of the children. From her testimony, it appears that she had some separate resources, and that she and the children had earned money. The record is silent, however, touching the ages of the children.

The statute upon which the prosecution is based denounces as an offense a willful desertion by the parent or the refusal of maintenance of his children under the age of 16 years who are in destitute circumstances. In the present case, it is essential to the conviction that there be proof showing the ages of the children, at least that they were under 16 years of age. Article 602, P. C. 1925. The statement of facts, agreed to by the attorneys and certified by the trial judge, shows that no evidence upon this subject was introduced. In this state of the record, we have no choice but to order a reversal of the.judgment, which is accordingly done.  