
    BURNETT v. STATE.
    (No. 8147.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    April 2, 1924.)
    1. Indictment and information <@=>I30 — Information held not invalid for charging different violations of same statute in different counts.
    An information based on Pen. Code 1911, art. 258, as amended by Acts 36th Reg. (1919) c. 55 (Vernon’s Ann. Pen. Code Supp. 1922, art. 258), forbidding election officers to aid voters in making out their ballots in any language other than English,' was not invalid because it charged in separate counts different violations of kindred character of the same statute; same being'misdemeanors.
    2. Elections <®=s>328(3) — Information for aiding voter in language other than English need not specify language' lised.
    An information advising accused, an election officer, that, at a particular time and place, he aided a named voter in making out his ballot, .by using language other than English, in, violation of Pen. Code 1911, art. 258, as amended by Acts 36th Leg. (1919) c. 55 (Vernon’s Ann. Pen. Code Supp. 1922, art;-258), was sufficient without specifying the particular language used.
    Appeal from Willacy County Court; W. E. McCarren, Judge.
    Lloyd Burnett was convicted of violating the election law, and he áp'peals.
    Affirmed.
    Tom Garrard, State’s Atty„ and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., .both of Austin, for the State.
   LATTIMORE, J.

Appellant was convicted, i» the county court of Willacy county of violating the election law, and his punishment fixed at a fine of $201.

There appears in the record an agreement signed and approved with all the formalities required of a statement of facts, from which we. learn that it was agreed by the attorneys representing the.-state and the appellant, and approved by the learned trial judge, that the facts in’- testimony were sufficient to support' the verdict of guilt.

Article 258. of our Penal Code, as amended by the Regular Session of the 36th. Legislature, chapter 55 (Vernon’s Ann. Pen. Code Supp. 1922, art. 258), forbids any officer at an election held- in, this state to render aid to a voter in making out his ballot in any other than the English language, and provides appropriate penalties. It was no valid objection to the information herein that in separate counts same charged different violations of ¡said statute, of -kindred-character ; same being misdemeanors. Witherspoon v. State, 39 Tex. Cr. R. 65, 44 S. W. 164, 1096; Gould v. State, 66 Tex. Cr. R. 421, 147 S. W. 247.

We do not think the information defective for failure to allege what language was used by appellant in aiding the voter. The statute penalizes him if he aid any voter in a language other than the English language, and the information advised the accused that at a particular time and place he aided a named voter in making out his ballot and that in so doing he used language other than the English language. The object of this law is evidently to prevent fraud- in elections. The judges, officers, and citizens of this state generally should know the English language, and therefore should know what was being said, by any particular officer to a voter offering to vote and desiring assistance in making out his ballot; but such other officers might not know the language used in so aiding, if it be a,foreign language. To require that the information or indictment should plead, and the proof show, what other language was used, would not aid the accused and would not more specifically point out the offense committed, and such requirement might seriously hamper the enforcement of the law and practically render it ineffective.

Being of opinion that no error appears in the record, an affirmance must be ordered.  