
    HATCHER v. STATE.
    (No. 3252.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Oct. 21, 1914.
    Rehearing Denied Nov. 18, 1914.)
    1. Libel and Slander (§ 152) — Criminal Prosecution — Sufficiency of Information.
    Any information charging, in the language of the statute, that defendant falsely, maliciously, and wantonly imputed a want of chastity to a married woman, naming her, in the presence and hearing of certain persons, by saying that her husband was not the father of the child recently born to her, but that its father was a certain other man, sufficiently imputed a want of chastity, without innuendo.
    [Ed. Note. — For other eases, see Libel and Slander, Cent. Dig. §§ 417, 419-424, 426, 427; Dec. Dig. § 152.]
    2. Indictment and Information (§ 161)— Amendment — Designation of Accused.
    Where defendant’s name was originally stated in the complaint and information as “Clara” Bell Hatcher, the court properly allowed an amendment noted on the minutes, so as to show her true name, “Mary” Bell Hatcher.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Indictment and Information, Cent. Dig. §§ 516-523; Dec. Dig. § 161.]
    3. Criminal Law (§ 1099) — Appeal—Statement of Facts — Time for Filing.
    Where the term at which the case was tried adjourned May 9, 1914, and there was no order allowing any time after the term to file a statement of facts, a purported statement of facts filed May 21, 1914, would be stricken, because not filed in term time.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2866-2880; Dee. Dig. § 1099.]
    Appeal from Jackson County Court; J. W. Bagby, Judge.
    Mary Bell Hatcber was convicted of slander, and sbe appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Gordon Lawson and E. E. Bateman, both of 'Palacios, for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for tbe State.
    
      
      For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep’r Indexes
    
   PRENDERGAST, P. J.

Appellant was convicted of slander, and tbe lowest punishment assessed against her.

The complaint and information charged, in the language of tbe statute, that sbe falsely and maliciously and wantonly imputed a want of chastity to a married woman, naming her, in tbe presence and hearing of certain persons, naming them, in that sbe said that tbe husband of tbe slandered woman was not tbe father of tbe child recently born to her, but that its father was one of tbe Ashley boys. This language, without question, imputed a want of chastity to tbe slandered woman, and needed no innuendo to make it “clear, so that tbe court did not err in overruling appellant’s motion to quash tbe complaint and information because of a want of an innuendo.

Tbe appellant’s name was given originally in tbe complaint and information as Clara Bell Hatcber. Her true name was Mary Bell Hatcber. Sbe moved to quash the pleadings on that account. Tbe court entered an order that, it being suggested by defendant’s counsel that her name was Mary, etc., instead of Clara, tbe pleadings be corrected, and instructed tbe clerk to note tbe change on the minutes, which was done. The court committed no error in so doing. Cresencio v. State, 165 S. W. 936.

Tbe term of court at which this case was tried adjourned May 9, 1914. No order was made allowing any time after adjournment to file a statement of facts. What purports to be such statement shows to have been agreed to, approved, and filed May 21, 1914. Tbe Assistant Attorney General moves the court to strike out said statement of facts, because not filed in term time, which is here granted. Durham v. State, 155 S. W. 222.

There is no other question raised which can be considered in the absence of a statement of facts.

The judgment is affirmed.  