
    WEBER v. STATE.
    (No. 3858.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Dec. 8, 1915.)
    1. Forgery &wkey;>28 — Forgery of Deeds — Indictment— SUFFICIENCY.
    Under Pen. Code 1911, art. 947, providing the penalty for forging a deed purporting to be the act of another, it is sufficient for the indictment to allege that the deed forged purported to-be the act of another, and it is not necessary to name the pretended grantor.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Forgery, Cent. Dig. §§ 66-70, 74-76; Dec. Dig. &wkey;28.]
    2. Indictment and Information <&wkey;86 — For-geky oe Deeds — Place oe Offense.
    An indictment for forgery of a deed, which failed to allege the location of the land, but included a copy of the forged deed, which described the land as lying in J. county, and also alleged that the forgery was done in J. county, sufficiently showed jurisdiction of the offense in that county.
    [Ed. Note. — For other eases, see Indictment and Information, Cent. Dig. §§ 230-243; Dec. Dig. <§=o86.]
    3. Indictment and Information &wkey;>79 — Forgery of Deeds — Intelligibility.
    An indictment for forgery of a deed, which employed the words “with intent to injure and defraud and defraud,” was not therefore unintelligible.
    [Ed. Note. For other cases, see Indictment & Information, Cent.Dig. §§ 209-214; Dec.Dig.&wkey;?79.]
    4. Forgery c&wkey;27 — Forgery of Deeds — Indictment — Sufficiency.
    Under Pen. Code 1911, art. 947, providing a penalty for forgery of a deed with intent to defraud, an indictment alleging that defendant “did then and there without’lawful authority, and with intent to injure and defraud, willfully and fraudulently did make and forge a false instrument in writing purporting to be the act of another,” sufficiently alleges the intent essential to the offense.
    [Ed. Note. — Eor other cases, see Forgery, Cent. Dig. § 62; Dec. Dig. &wkey;>27.]
    5. FOEGEEY <&wkey;29 — FORGERY Off DEEDS — INDICTMENT — UNNECESSARY Allegations.
    Under Pen. Code 1911, art. 947, providing a penalty for forgery of a deed with intent to defraud, an indictment alleging that defendant, without lawful authority and with intent to injure and defraud, willfully and fraudulently made and forged a false instrument in writing purporting to be the act of another, “which false instrument related to and affected an interest in the land in the state of Texas, and was so falsely made that, if it were true and genuine, it would have affected and transferred title to land in Texas,” was not bad for alleging unnecessary facts descriptive of the land involved, sufficient to invalidate it.
    [Ed. Note. — For other eases, see Forgery, Cent. Dig. §§ 77-81; Dec. Dig. &wkey;29.]
    Appeal from District Court, Jefferson County; W. H. Davidson, Judge.
    Henry Y. Weber was convicted of forging a deed, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    C. C. McDonald, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PRENDERGAST, P. J.

Appellant was convicted of forging a deed, and was assessed the lowest punishment. There is neither a bill of exceptions or statement of facts. The indictment and prosecution were under article 947, P. C., which was quoted in full in Thompson v. State, 69 Tex. Cr. R. 82, 152 S. W. 893.

After the necessary preliminary allegations, the indictment alleges that appellant, on or about March 12, 1915, in Jefferson county, Tex., “then and there, without lawful authority and with intent to injure and defraud and defraud, willfully and fraudulently did make and forge a false instrument in writing, purporting to be the act of another, which false and forged instrument did then and there relate to and affect an interest in land in the said state of Texas, and was then and there so falsely made by the said Henry Y. Weber in such manner that, if the same were true and genuine, it would have affected and transferred the title to certain land in the said state of Texas, and which said false instrument purports to be a deed conveying certain land from Tom Lucid to Henry V. Weber, and is to the tenor following.” Then follows a copy of what, if genuine, would have been a deed from Tom Lucid to appellant, conveying certain lots in Beaumont, Tex., dated March 12, 1915. Then follows a certificate of acknowledgment and a certificate of registration. Appellant made a motion to quash the indictment on the ground that it charges the forged deed to be the act of another, but does not state whose act it purports to be. This was unnecessary. Hardin v. State, 60 Tex. Cr. R. 129, 131 S. W. 552.

His next ground is that the court was without jurisdiction, because the indictment did not show in what county the land was located which the forged deed conveyed, and that the indictment was unintelligible, because it used the words “and defraud” twice. The forged deed copied in the indictment showed that the land purported to be conveyed thereby was in Beaumont, in Jefferson county, Tex., and the indictment alleged, in addition, expressly that said deed was forged in Jefferson county, Tex. The indictment was good against these objections.

After the trial the appellant made a motion in arrest of judgment substantially on these grounds: (1) That the indictment did not set out any of the statutory elements of intent in the purport clause as prescribed in said article of the act prescribing the offense; (2) because said indictment in the purport clause charges additional and unnecessary facts descriptive of the land described in the forged deed, which rendered it invalid. We think the indictment was valid against these objections, and the court correctly overruled both his motion to quash and in arrest of judgment. There is no other question raised in the case.

The judgment is affirmed. 
      cgx^jFor other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     