
    ADAMS v. STATE.
    (No. 11202.)
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Nov. 30, 1927.
    1. Criminal law <&wkey;44 — Amendment to statute concerning) swindling changing punishment held not to affect ease tried before amendment became 6ffective (Pen. Code, art. 1422’, as amended by Acts 40th Leg. 1927, c. 157).
    Amendment to Pen. Code, art. 1422, concerning misdemeanor, swindling by giving a check without sufficient funds to pay the check, passed by Acts 40th Leg. 1927, c. 157, changing punishment, held! not to affect case, where defendant committed offense and was tried before amendment became effective.
    2. Criminal law <&wkey;'l092(l4) — Bills of exception not authenticated by judge held not reviewable, notwithstanding appellant stated in-brief that judge filed them with clerk (Vernon’s Ann. Civ. St. 1925, art. 2237, subds. 5-3; Code Cr. Proc. 1925, art. 667).
    Bills of exception, not authenticated by trial judge, held1 not reviewable under Vernon’s Ann. Civ. St. 1925, art. 2237, subds. 5-8 (Oode Or. Proc. 1925; art. 667), notwithstanding- appellant stated in his brief that the trial judge filed the bills with the clerk, this statement not being such verification of the fact as would authorize consideration of the bills where they were not otherwise entitled to it.
    3. Names <&wkey;>4 — In prosecution- for swindling by giving check without funds in bank, omission to add “Jr.” to, name of alleged injured party held immaterial.
    In prosecution for misdemeanor, swindling by giving check without sufficient funds in the bank to pay it, omission to add “Jr.” to name of alleged injured party held immaterial, and proof was not at variance with allegations because of the omission, since the abbreviation is a matter of description and forms no part of a person’s legal name.
    Appeal from Madison County Court; W. Y. Jones, Judge.
    E. S. Adams was convicted for misdemeanor swindling by giving a check without sufficient funds in the bank to pay the check, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    A. H. Menefee, of Madisonville, for appellant.
    A. A. Dawson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.
   HAWKINS, J.

Conviction is for misdemeanor swindling by giving a check for $3 without sufficient funds in the bank to pay the check. Punishment is three hours’ confinement in the county jail.

The court instructed the jury that the punishment for petty swindling was “imprisonment in jail not exceeding two years and by fine not exceeding $500, or by such imprisonment without the fine.” In his brief appellant suggests that the Fortieth Legislature (chapter 157, p. 232) amended article 1422, P. C., to make swindling or theft of property under the value of $5 punishable by a fine only. The Fortieth Legislature (Regular Session) adjourned on the 16th day of March, 1927, and the amendment in question did not become effective until 90 days after adjournment. The present offense is alleged to have been committed on the 6th day of March, 1926,.and the trial was had on the 20th day of April, 1927, long before the amendment became effective, hence it does not affect this case.

We find in the transcript nine bills of exception, eight of which are not approved by the trial judge. The bills not authenticated by the judge seem to have no place in the record. See article 667, C. C. P. 1925, and articles 2237, subds. 5-8, Vernon’s Revised Civil Statutes 1925, and the authorities collated under note 35, art. 667, Vernon’s C. C. P. 1925, vol. 2. As to these unapproved bills, appellant insists that when bills are neither approved nor disapproved by the trial judge, but are by him ordered filed as a part of the record, the bills should be considered. Fredrickson v. State, 44 Tex. Cr. R. 288, 70 S. W. 754. Without discussing the proposition advanced it may be disposed of - by saying that the history of the unsigned bills nowhere appears in the record. Appellant says in his brief that the judge filed them with the clerk. This statement may be absolutely true, but it is not such verification of the fact as would authorize consideration of the bills if they are otherwise entitled to it.

The bill of exception which is approved brings forward complaint that the court erred in not giving a peremptory instruction of acquittal because of a claimed variance in the name of the injured party as alleged and proven. The check was made payable to “W. A. Price,’’ and the representations were alleged to have been made to him. The proof shows that W. A. Price, Sr., owned a saddle shop, but that W. A. Price, Jr., was in charge of and manager of it; that he did the work on appellánt’s saddle and received the check and paid appellant 40 cents'in money; that the services rendered by him were for the benefit of his father and that the 40 cents in money paid by him belonged to his father. We see no variance. The fact that the party who had actual management and control of the business was W. A. Price, Jr., would not call for an allegation to that effect. In Windom v. State, 44 Tex. Cr. R. 514, 72 S. W. 193, is found the following statement:

“The word, ‘Junior,’ or ‘Jr.’ or words of similar import, are ordinarily mere matters of description, and form no part of a person’s legal name, and to omit or add such appellation or cognomen is harmless error, both in civil and criminal proceeding.” .

And in support of which many authorities are cited. See, also, Peters v. State, 69 Tex. Cr. R. 403, 154 S. W. 563, and section 461, Branch’s Ann. Tex. P. C., for collation of other authorities.

The judgment is affirmed. 
      @=5For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     