
    DAVIS v. STATE.
    (No. 5838.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    June 25, 1920.
    Rehearing Denied Oct. 13, 1920.)
    1. Names &wkey;>l6(l) — No Variance between names which sound alike and are spelled nearly alike.
    There is no material variance between a name as stated in the indictment and the name established by evidence, if they may be sounded alike without violence to the letters in the different spelling, or if they are pronounced rather indiscriminately one way or the other, and the difference in spelling is slight.
    2. Names <&wkey;!6(2) — No variance between “Hodge” and “Hodges.”
    The difference in the name of the prosecu-trix, “Hodge,” as stated in the indictment, and “Hodges,” as established by evidence, is not sufficient to require a reversal of the conviction, where there was no question that the person intended was the same.
    3. Criminal law &wkey;>l 173(2) — Omitting restriction of idem sonans from charge held harmless.
    Error in omitting from a charge that it was sufficient if the jury found the prosecutrix was the same person mentioned in the indict-nent, the restriction that the names should be 'dem sonans was not reversible error, where ;ho names were idem sonans and the certainty jf the person intended was clear.
    Appeal from District Court, Van Zandt County; Joel R. Bond, Judge.
    Will Davis was convicted of rape, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Stanford & Sanders, of Canton, for appellant.
    Alvin M. Owsley, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   DAVIDSON, P. J.

Appellant was convicted of rape and alloted six years in the penitentiary. We deem it unnecessary to discuss the facts. If the state’s evidence was believed by the jury, it authorized a conviction. Had they believed the appellant, they would have acquitted of rape.

The question of variance between the name of the prosecutrix alleged in the indictment and that proved upon the trial is relied upon, among other things, for reversal. The indictment alleged the name of prosecutrix to be Mary I-Iodge.

The evidence shows her name was Mary Hodges; the difference being the “s” in the latter name, which was not in the first. The question of variance on the theory of idem sonans has been a very vexed one, not only in Texas, but it seems generally upon an examination of the cases. In fact, they are so much at variance with each other and so inharmonious they are practically incapable of reconciliation.

Some general rules, however, are fairly well recognized. If the names may bo sounded alike without doing violence to the power of the letters found in the variant orthography, or if the name as stated be idem sonans with the true nanfe, the variance and misspelling is not material. This is quoted from Mr. Branch’s Ann. P. C. p. 11. Eor citation of authorities see that work. Generally speaking, where names are pronounced rather indiscriminately either one way or the other, and in the spelling the variation of difference is slight, it would not constitute grounds for a variance under the doctrine of idem sonans.

We are of opinion that Hodge and Hodges come within that rule, and that the variance would not be of sufficient importance to require a reversal of this judgment. The writer is of opinion that perhaps a test in cases of this character might be that, if under the second prosecution the accused could' plead jeopardy on account of the name, the variance would not be of sufficient importance to require a reversal. This doctrine, however, might be fraught with some difficulty. With this particular case there should be no trouble, because the names are so similar that the variance would be immaterial and of no practical importance.

There are quite a number of cases cited by Mr. Branch in his Ann. P. C. p. 12, and note 23, sustaining this proposition. See Gentry v. State, 62 Tex. Cr. R. 497, 137 S. W. 696. In that case the name was Gentary and not Gentry. This was not a violation of the rule of idem sonans. So was the name Noberto and Norberto held to be idem so-nans, as was Foster and Faster, Grigg and Griggs, Sawyers and Sawyer, Williams and William, and Garcia and Garzia. We are of opinion that under the facts this variance, if it be considered a variance, between the name of Hodge and Hodges, is not sufficient in importance to require a reversal. That Mary -Hodge and Mary Hodges was the same person is left beyond question or dispute. She testified in the case, and furnished all the facts that appellant had carnal intercourse with her, and there was no question raised of the fact that she was the same person. The issue suggested by appellant was that he did not have such intercourse. She was a girl under 15 years of age, and the question of consent did not arise,

It is also contended that the court was in error in charging the jury, if they found she was the same person mentioned in the indictment and the one with whom the intercourse was had, it would be sufficient. This charge is of doubtful propriety, and, if the doctrine of idem sonans was of sufficient importance and applicable to the case, that might constitute reversible error. Under the rule laid down by the court in the charge the doctrine of idem sonans might be foreign to the question; we might add any other name, as well as Mary Hodge ' or Mary Hodges. But take the case as it stands, there being no sufficient variance between the names to require a reversal, we think the charge was of harmless import.

Finding no reversible error in the record, the judgment will be affirmed. - 
      <§ss>For other oases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     