
    McCORMICK v. STATE.
    (No. 11755.)
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    June 6, 1928.
    I.Robbery <®=>I7(6) — Indictment averring that defendant did “take from the person and possession and without the consent and against the will” of prosecuting witness $5 sufficiently averred that property was taken from his person and possession.
    Indictment averring that defendant did “fraudulently take from the person and possession and without the consent and against the will” of prosecuting witness $5 held not bad, as not alleging that property was taken from prosecuting witness’ person and possession.
    2. Robbery <®=o!7(6) — Indictment for robbery need not allege want of consent, or taking against will, of owner of property.
    Indictment for robbery, averring statutory elements of offense, need not allege want of consent, nor that taking was against the will of owner of property.
    3. Criminal law <⅜=»1186(4) — Absence of clerk’s file mark on court’s charge held not reversible error (Code Cr. Proc. 1925, arts. 661, 665, 666).
    In absence of showing of any injury to defendant by clerk’s omission to place file mark on court’s charge, as required by Code Cr. Proc. 1925, arts. 661, 665, such error must be held harmless, and hence not ground for reversal, in view of article 666.
    Appeal from District Court, Lamar County ; George P. Blackburn, Judge.
    Inza McCormick was convicted of robbery, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Sturgeon & Sturgeon, of Paris, for appellant.
    A. A. Dawson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.
   HAWKINS, ‘J.

Conviction is for robbery; punishment being eight years in the penitentiary. The indictment averred that:

Appellant made an assault upon Trueman Neighbors, and that by putting Neighbors in fear of life or bodily .injury “ ⅜ * * did then and there fraudulently take from the person and possession and without the consent and against the will of the said Trueman Neighbors $5 in money of the value of $5, the said property then and there being the corporeal personal property of the said Trueman Neighbors, with the fraudulent intent then and there qf him, the said Inza McCormick, to deprive the said Trueman Neighbors of the value of the same and to appropriate the same to the use and benefit of him the said Inza McCormick. * * * ”

A motion was made to quash the indictment, on the ground that it was not alleged therein that the property was taken from the person and possession of Neighbors. We think the language employed by the pleader cannot be construed as failing to aver that the property was taken from the person and possession of Neighbors. In an indictment for robbery, where the statutory elements of the offense are averred, it is not necessary to allege “want of consent,” nor that the taking was “against the will” of the owner. Williams v. State, 37 Tex. Cr. R. 147, 38 S. W. 999; Brown v. State, 61 Tex. Cr. R. 334, 136 S. W. 265; Chancey v. State, 58 Tex. Cr. R. 54, 124 S. W. 426. The words “without the consent and against the will” appearing in the instant indictment might be regarded as surplusage. It is their presence which seems to form the basis for appellant’s contention. However, taking the language as it stands, we think appellant’s contention is without merit.

In his brief appellant calls attention to the fact that the transcript fails to show that the count’s charge was filed by the clerk. If the charge was not filed, it does not appear that the trial judge’s attention was called to it, or that any question was raised about it in the trial court. Article 661, C. C. P., directs that the charge shall be “filed among the papers in the cause.” Article 665 provides ithat the jury may take with them the charges given by the court “after the same have been filed.” Article 666 specifically provides that¡ when the foregoing two requirements, among others, have been disregarded, the judgment shall not be reversed, unless the error was calculated to injure the accused. The judgment recites that the jury was “duly charged, by the court.” There being an entire failure to show any injury to appellant from the omission of the clerk to place his file mark on the charge, we must give effect to article 666, supra, and hold the error harmless. Haynie v. State, 3 Tex. App. 223, Clampitt v. State, 3 Tex. App. 638, and other early decisions of this court collated in note 2 under article 661, Vernon’s C. C. P. vol. 2, have no application in view of (the provisions of present article 666, C. C. P. The same principle applies as where the trial judge has omitted to sign his charge. Allen v. State, 98 Tex. Cr. R. 223, 265 S. W. 580; Trammel v. State, 100 Tex. Cr. R. 412, 273 S. W. 602.

We have examined the bills of exception which appear in the transcript. None of them presents error nor is deemed of sufficient importance to demand discussion.

The facts are amply sufficient to support the verdict.

The judgment is affirmed. 
      ®=»For other eases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     