
    JASPER v. STATE.
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    March 4, 1914.)
    1. Insurance (§ 30*) — Soliciting of Insurance — Indictment.
    Under Pen. Code 1911, art. 689, making it a misdemeanor for any person for direct or indirect compensation to solicit insurance without a certificate of authority to act as an insurance agent, an information, failing to allege that the solicitor was to receive compensation, either directly or indirectly, charges no offense.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Insurance, Cent. Dig. § 35; Dec. Dig. § 30.*]
    2. Indictment and Information (§ 196*) —
    Motion to Quash — Waiver.
    A conviction under such information cannot be sustained, though no motion was made to quash it before trial, as the defect was of substance, and not of form, and might be raised at any time.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Indictment and Information, Cent. Dig. §§ 628-635; Dec. Dig. § 196.*]
    Appeal from Nolan County Court; Jno. H. Cochran, Jr., Judge.
    G. C. Jasper was convicted of wrongfully soliciting insurance, and he appeals.
    Reversed.
    Wilson & Wilson, of Sweetwater, for appellant. R. N. Grisham, of Sweetwater, and C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   HARPER, J.

This prosecution was brought under article 689 of the Code, which provides that if “any person who, for direct or incti-reet compensation, solicits insurance,” etc., he shall be adjudged guilty of a misdemean- or, and his punishment assessed in any sum not less than $100.

The information alleges all the elements of the offense, except to allege that solicitor was to receive compensation, either directly or indirectly. It was essential that this fact be proven, otherwise a conviction could not be sustained; and, while there was no motion made to quash the information before trial, yet it is a defect of substance and not of form, and may be raised at any time, for without this allegation being in the information, it charges no offense against the laws of this state.

There are a number of other questions raised, and we have considered each of them. None of them present error, and the evidence would amply support a conviction for a violation of this provision of the Code, but because the information does not charge . an offense under this provision of the law, we must- necessarily quash the information and complaint, and reverse and dismiss the case.

The judgment is reversed, and the appeal is dismissed.  