
    Billie Rodger FLORENCE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
    No. 27139.
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas,
    Nov. 3, 1954.
    Rehearing Denied Dec. 15, 1954,
    
      No attorney on appeal for appellant.
    Howard M. Fender, Crim. Dist. Atty., Eugene D. Biddle, Hugh F. King, Conard Florence/ Asst. Dist. Aftys., Fort' Worth, Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.
   WOODLEY, Judge.

The conviction is for aggravated assault with a motor vehicle; the punishment, one year in‘jail.-

Appellant eomplai-ns of the overruling of hid motion- to quash the information.- The. information alleged .that appellant “did drive and operate a motor vehicle, to-wit:an aut_obile”, while- the complaint alleged that he drove, and operated “a motor vehicle;, tor-wit: an- aut_mobile”.

Bad spelling • will not- vitiate the complaint or 'information if the sense is not affected and the meaning cannot' be mistaken. Graham v. State, 119 Tex.Cr.R. 14, 46 S.W.2d 709; Murphey v. State, 109 Tex.Cr.R. 524, 5 S.W.2d 988.

The .complaint and information each show the misspelling of the word automobile, but it clearly appears that it was meant in each instance to allege that the motor vehicle was an automobile. No variance is therefqre shown.

There is no statement of facts, in the absence of which the remaining bill cannot be appraised.

The judgment is affirmed. ■

On Motion for Rehearing.

MORRISON, Judge.

Appellant urges that the judgment is-vague and indefinite, as to the punishment.

The judgmént is now reformed so-as to recite that appellant shall be confined! ⅛ the county jail for a term of one year and until’ the costs of prosecution are paid1 so as to conform 'to the information, the-charge of the court and the verdict of the-jury." ' '

Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled and, as reformed, the judgment is-affirmed.  