
    ALT v. STATE.
    (No. 4996.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    May 1, 1918.)
    1. Perjury <&wkey;25(3) — Before Grand Jury-Indictment — Sufficiency.
    An indictment for perjury committed before the grand jury, alleging that after defendant had been duly sworn it became and was a material inquiry before said grand jury, ■ and necessary for the due administration of the criminal laws of the state and for the ends of public justice, to wit, whether said W, D. A. cashed a certain check for and signed by N. A., said check being of a certain tenor, and .whether the said W. D. A. presented said check for payment thereafter, and whether payment was refused, that said W. D. A. did on, etc., in said county and state, before and to the said grand jury under the sanction of said oath deliberately and willfully state and testify in substance as follows, that on, etc., he cashed said check here-inbefore described for said N. A., that some time thereafter, during the month, etc., he presented said check hereinbefore described, and that payment therefor was refused, was insufficient, in that it failed to show- the materiality of the false testimony, or that the matters inquired about could become a matter for investigation of the grand jury from a criminal standpoint.
    2. Grand Jury &wkey;>l — Extent of Inquiry.
    The grand jury is only empowered to inquire into violations of criminal laws.
    Appeal from Criminal District Court, Dallas County; C. A. Pippen, Judge.
    W. D. Alt was convicted of perjury, and he appeals.
    Reversed, and prosecution ordered dismissed. 4
    A. S. B'askett, of Dallas, for appellant. E. B. Hendricks, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   DAVIDSON, P. J.

Appellant was convicted of perjury; his punishment being assessed at two years’ confinement in the penitentiary.

The indictment alleges this perjury was committed before a grand jury in Dallas county, and of which W. H. Noble was foreman, and that appellant—

“did then and there take his corporeal 9atk and was duly sworn as a witness before said grand jury, said oath being then and there duly administered to him by the said foreman, who was then and there authorized by law to administer the same, and which said oath was then and there required by law, and was necessary for the ends of public justice, and was administered for the ends of public justice, whereupon it then and there became and was a material inquiry before said grand jury, and necessary for the due administration of the criminal laws of said state and for the ends of public justice, to wit:
“(1) Whether said W. D. Alt, in the city of Dallas, in Dallas county, Texas, on the 16th day of Juno, A. I>. 1916, cashed a certain check for and signed by N. A. Dawson; said check being of the tenor following: ‘No. 77. Stephen-ville, Texas, 6/16, 1916. 88-357. Cage & Grow, Bankers (Unincorporated): Pay to the order of W. D. Alt iflOO.OO one hundred & 00/100 dollars. Bexar Construction Go., Per N. A. Dawson. Gashed for NAD.’
“(2) AVhether the said W. D. Alt in the month of July, 1916, presented said check hereinbefore described for payment to W. E. Crotty, assistant cashier of the Gage & Grow Bank, at Stephenville, Texas, and whether payment thereof was refused by said W. B. Crotty, assistant cashier, as aforesaid; and the said W. D. Alt did on the 27th day of September, A. D. 1917, in said county and state, before and to the said grand jury, under the sanction of said oath administered to him as aforesaid, deliberately and willfully state and testify in substance as follows, to wit:
“(1) That in the city of Dallas, in Dallas county, Texas, on the 16th day of June, A. D. 1916, lie cashed said check hereinbefore described for said N. A. Dawson.
“(2) That some time during the month of July, 1916, he presented said check hereinbefore described for payment to W. E. Grotty, at the Gage & Crow Bank, at Stephenville, Texas, and that payment thereof was then and there refused by said W. E. Grotty.”

The indictment, after charging that defendant testified to the truthfulness of both assignments, traverses the truth of both. The indictment was attacked on motion in arrest of judgment, by general demurrer, and specific exceptions. It is contended the indictment does not show a violation of the criminal laws in the matters stated, and that there is no allegation that the grand jury was examining into any particular matter which constituted an offense, nor was. that body inquiring of defendant in general terms whether he had knowledge of the violation of any penal offense, or that any questions were asked defendant in regard thereto. The further contention is made that there is no allegation sufficiently showing the materiality of the statement to any matter about Which the grand jury was authorized by law to act or investigate. There is no allegation to show they were inquiring about any particular violation of the law, or in general terms whether he had knowledge of any violation of the law. This indictment fails to allege sufficient facts to show the materiality of the testimony about which inquiry was being made. It does allege that appellant testified that he had cashed a check drawn , in his favor by N. A. Dawson, who purported to represent a construction company, which check is alleged to have been given in June, and he testified that in July he presented it to a bank in Stephenville, Erath county, for payment, which payment was refused. These matters are alleged to be false. Appellant swore they were true.

There is nothing alleged to show how these matters became,- or could become, a matter for investigation by the grand jury from a criminal standpoint. The grand jury would have no right to • inquire into other matters than violations of the penal law. It is not alleged that this testimony was given in regard to any matter criminal, nor does it allege any fact that would show that it related to any criminal offense. The grand jury is only empowered to inquire into violations of criminal laws of Texas. Upon this subject we cite Gallegos v. State, 50 Tex. Cr. R. 191, 95 S. W. 123; Pigg v. State, 71 Tex. Cr. R. 600, 160 S. W. 691; Scott v. State, 72 Tex. Cr. R. 26, 160 S. W. 960; Higgins v. State, 38 Tex. Cr. R. 539, 43 S. W. 1012; Weaver v. State, 34 Tex. Cr. R. 554, 31 S. W. 400. Neither allegation in the indictment shows even indirectly that it was a violation of any criminal law; that is, either to pay the check or to present it to the bank in Erath county for payment and its refusal. Without in some way showing that these allegations could form the basis of a criminal prosecution which would form the subject of an inquiry by the grand jury, that body would have no right to inquire into it.

There are other matters in the case that might be of importance, presented by bills of exception to charges asked and refused, and to the introduction of evidence; but as the matter is presented we will not discuss them.

The judgment will be reversed, and the prosecution ordered dismissed. 
      <§=For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     