
    BASSETT v. STATE.
    No. 21013.
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    April 17, 1940.
    
      ' J. S." Bracewell, ’ of Houston, for appellant.
    Lloyd' W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.'
   GRAVES, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of an offense relative to the proper registration of a motor vehicle, and fined the sum of $25, hence this appeal.

Article 804 of the Penal Code reads as follows: “Whoever operates upon any public highway á motor vehicle which has not been registered as required by law shall be fined not to exceed two hundred dollars.”

In order to find that which is required by law relative to the registration of such automobiles, we are relegated to the civil statutes. Article 6675a — 2, Vernon’s Ann. Civ.St., reads as follows: “Every owner of a motor vehicle, trailer' or 'semitrailer, used or to be used upon the public highways of this State, and each chauffeur, shall apply each year to the State Highway Department through the County Tax, Collector of the County in which he resides for the registration of each such vehicle owned or controlled by him, or for a chauffeur’s license, for the ensuing or 'current calendar year or unexpired' portion thereof * *

The information, which follows the comr plaint, reads in th.e part- pertinent hereto as follows: “ * * * did then and there unlawfully operate, and, cause and permit to be operated, upon a public street and highway in Harris Cpunt-y, Texas, -a-motof vehicle, to-wit: an automobile truck and .having attached thereto two license plates of the State of Texas being numbered 30c/m795, which motor vehicle had not ⅝-been- theretofore registered as required by law in this: .that said.motor vehicle had theretofore on the 28th day of March A. D., 1939, been registered in Chambers County,. Texas, for the license year 1939 by ■'the said Sam : Bassett' Lumber Company, ⅛ corporation, with its ’principal' office and place of business in Houston, Harris County, Texas; the said- Sam .-Bassett Lumber '.Company, a corporation, not then and the-r.e having its principal: office .-and place of business in Chambers County, Texas; * *

We gqther from the allegations that appellant is charged,with registering his truck in Chambers County, but is not charged therein - with not registering the same in Harris County. Inferentially it might be deduced that -he had hot registered the same in Harris County because same was registered in Chambers County, but the rules -,of good pleading demand that the matter' charged -.against .an accused shall be pleaded with certainty and not be pleaded- inferentially. The appellant may have registered this car -truck in two counties, arjd. the mere fact that he had .registered same in. Chambers County does not mean that he had not registered the same in Harris County.-.The gist of'the offense is not that he registered such truck in Chambers .County, but the violation of ,the law arises only when, he fails to register such .truck in Harris. County. The complaint and. information are defective in that they do, not, allege that said truck was .not registered in Harris. County, the county of appellant’s, residence, .etc.

In Ex parte Jonischkies, 88 Tex. Cr.R. 574, 227 S.W. 952, we said that it is fundamental that the complaint must state 'facts which, if true, amount to a violation 'of the law. In Ex parte Vasquez, Tex. Cr.R. 56 S.W.2d 190, 191, it is said: “As stated by this court in the recent case of Jones v. State 118 Tex.Cr.R. 106, 38 S.W.2d 587, 588: Under our statute all that is essential to constitute the offerise must be sufficiently charged and Cannot be aided 'by intendment.' The-facts-constituting the offense must be set -forth so that the conclusions of law may be arrived at from the facts so stated. Articles 396 and 397, C. C. P.; Ford v. State, 108-Tex.Cr.R. 626, 2 S.W.2d 265. While the law does not require .minuteness of detail, it demands Sthat the particular offense be set out with .such certainty, that a presumptively in-nocent man seeking to know what he must meet may áscertain fully therefrom the matters charged- against him. Ford v. State, supra; Harden v. State, 85 Tex. Cr.R. 220, 211 S.W. 233, 4 A.L.R. 1308; Middleton v. State, 114 Tex.Cr.R. 263, 25 S.W.2d 614.

It is our opinion that the complaint and .information are defective and should have been quashed. ""

The judgment is therefore reversed and the prosecution ordered dismissed.  