
    FOX v. STATE.
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    March 1, 1911.
    Rehearing Denied March 22, 1911.)
    Criminal Law (§ 814) — Time of Offense— Instructions.
    Where an alleged unlawful sale of mortgaged property occurred July 15, 1909, and an indictment therefor was returned on September 80th following, an instruction that if the mortgage was a valid lien on the property on or about July 15, 1910, and defendant on that day sold the property, he was guilty, was erroneous.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 1979; Dec. Dig. § 814.]
    Appeal from District Court, Jackson- County; John M. Green, Judge.
    Willis Fox was convicted of unlawfully disposing of personal property with intent to defraud, and he appeals.
    Reversed.
    C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
    
      
      For other oases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series &.Rep’r Indexes
    
   DAVIDSON, P. J.

The indictment alleges that appellant did, with intent to defraud W. H. Shows, unlawfuly sell and dispose of certain personal property to Newton Diggs, to wit, one saddle; that appellant had theretofore, on- the 22d day of March, 1909, executed and delivered to Joe Bowen, trustee, a valid deed of trust in writing upon the property described to secure the said W. H. Shows in the payment of the promissory note given by appellant, in the sum of $35.50, due one month after the date of said mortgage, and which at the time was a valid subsisting deed of trust upon the property.

This sale occurred on the 15th day of July, 1909.The indictment was returned into court on the 30th day of September, 1909. The court instructed the jury that if they should find that the mortgage was on or about the 15th day of July, 1910, a valid subsisting mortgage, and defendant on .or about the 15th day of July, 1910, sold the property, he would be guilty. It will be noticed that the court authorized the jury to convict of an offense committed on the 15th of July, 1910,whereas the indictment had been returned on the 30th of September, 1909. The eharge authorized a conviction for a sale occurring something like 10 months after the return of the indictment. This is clearly an illegal and unauthorized charge. No conviction could be predicated upon an offense committed after the return of the indictment. Such is pot the charge in the indictment.

For this reason, the judgment will be reversed, and the cause remanded.  