
    Rosa Lee Brown v. The State.
    No. 15693.
    Delivered March 15, 1933.
    Rehearing Denied April 26, 1933.
    Reported in 59 S. W. (2d) 159.
    The opinion states the case.
    
      John L. Poulter, of Fort Worth, for appellant.
    
      Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Attorney, of Austin, for the State.
   MORROW, Presding Judge.

Theft, a misdemeanor, is the offense; penalty assessed at confinement in the county jail for a period of twenty days.

The offense is sufficiently charged in the complaint and information. The trial was had before a jury. No statement of facts or bills of exception accompany the record.

There is a motion for new trial but in the absence of the statement of facts, the complaint of the rulings of the court cannot be appraised.

Finding no error presented for review, the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING.

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

We are unable to agree with appellant’s contention that the complaint is defective. The essential ingredients of theft are sufficiently alleged.

The complaint begins: “Before the undersigned authority this day personally appeared this affiant, who, after being by me duly sworn,” etc. The complaint is signed “Oscar Hukill, Affiant.” It is sworn to before the proper officer, and attested by a sufficient jurat. The fact that the affiant’s name was not given in the body of the complaint did not render it defective. If the complaint is signed by the affiant and sworn to by him, his name need not appear in the body of the complaint. Branch’s Annotated Penal Code, sec. 479; Upton v. State, 26 S. W., 197; Utsler v. State, 195 S. W., 855.

The motion for rehearing is overruled.

Overruled.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.  