
    M. M. Scott v. The State.
    
      No. 560.
    
    
      Decided January 23rd, 1895.
    
    1. Perjury—Indictment.
    Where an indictment for perjtuy alleges that the statement sworn to by the defendant and assigned as perjury was material it is not necessary that it should further show or allege how or in what manner it was material.
    2. Same—Charge as to Materiality.
    Where the matter assigned for perjury was, that defendant had falsely testified, on a trial for theft of cattle, that he had put a certain brand upon them which it was proven by other witnesses was on them before he had ever branded them, Held, under the facts of the case, it was the duty of the court, as was done, to instruct the jury that the alleged false statement of the defendant was a material matter.
    3. Conflicting Evidence—Practice on Appeal.
    AVhere there is a conflict in the evidence, the court, on appeal, will not disturb the judgment if the evidence in behalf of the State supports the verdict.
    Appeal from the District Court of San Saba. Tried below before Hon. W. M. Allison.
    This appeal is from a conviction for perjury, the punishment being assessed at a term of five years’ imprisonment in the penitentiary.
    The case is sufficiently stated i;i the opinion.
    
      Burleson & Meek, for appellant.
    
      Mann Trice, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.
   HURT, Presiding Judge.

This conviction Avas obtained for perjury. Appellant Avas indicted and tried before the District Court of San Saba County for theft of two yearlings, the property of Ney Gorman. Upon that trial Gorman and others swore that after the yearlings were taken from the range they Avere seen in Henry Cravey’s pasture, and branded with a cross. These animals Avere taken from this pasture to appellant’s place and there branded 4A Upon the trial for this theft, appellant, being a witness in his own behalf, testified that when the latter brand Avas placed on the cattle he also placed on them the former or -f- brand, and the + brand was not on them Avhile they Avere in Cravey’s pasture In tins case this statement is assigned as perj ury, the indictment alleging it to be material. Motion to quash the indictment ivas urged, be cause the indictment did not show how the statement was material. This is not necessary, the materiality being alleged. The indictment allege several statements to be false, but clearly assigns perjury upon that stated above. The court, in his charge, confined the jury to the statement assigned for perjury. The charge of the court is correct. Under the facts of this case it ivas the duty of the court to tell the jury the statement Avas material. Washington v. State, 23 Texas Crim. App., 336; Donahoe v. State, 14 Texas Crim. App., 638; Jackson v. State, 15 Texas Crim. App., 579; Sisk v. State, 28 Texas Crim. App., 432; Rahm v. State, 30 Texas Crim. App., 310; Foster v. State, 32 Texas Cr. R., 39. There is a conflict in the testimony. That adduced for the State amply supports the verdict. We find no error, and the judgment is affirmed. -

Affirmed.  