
    DUNN v. STATE.
    (No. 10763.)
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Oct. 19, 1927.
    1. Infants <&wkey;>20— Refusing instruction to acquit of contributing to delinquency of child, unless child was already delinquent at date of alleged offense, held error (Pen. Code 1925, art. 534).
    In prosecution for contributing to the delinquency of a child, refusing to instruct that jury must acquit defendant, unless they found that child was already delinquent at date of alleged offense, held error, under Pen. Code 1925, art. 534.
    2. Constitutional law c&wkey;70(3) — Court cannot write matter into statutes.
    Court is not at liberty to write anything into ¡statutes because in its opinion it ought to be there, but it must take the law as it finds it.
    Appeal from Dallas County Court at Eaw; Paine E. Bush, Judge.
    B. A. Dunn was convicted of contributing to the delinquency of a child, and he appeals.
    Reversed.
    Oscar H. Calvert, of Dallas, for appellant.
    Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., and Robt. M. Lyles, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.
   EATTIMORE, J.

Conviction for contributing to the delinquency of a child; punishment, one year in the county jail and a fine of $500.

Appellant is convicted under article 534, 1925 P. O. He makes the point that under the terms of said article, unless, at the time of the alleged acts, the child in question was already a delinquent child, there could be no violation of said statute. He presented to the trial court a special charge, which was Refused, in which he sought to have the jury told that, unless they found from the testimony that said child, at the date charged, was a delinquent child, they should acquit.

The record before us, if the state’s evidence be true, presents a case of much depravity, and it is with reluctance that we are forced to say in our opinion that the trial court erred in refusing to give the special charge asked.

Article 534, supra, plainly provides that in all eases when a child is a “delinquent child,” or a “neglected or dependent child,” as defined in the statutes of this state, if its parent, guardian, or the person having custody of, or responsible for, “such child” encourages, causes, or contributes to the delinquency or dependency of “such child,” or if any other person encourages, causes, or contributes to the delinquency or dependency of “such child,” such person shall be punished as provided. The second paragraph of said article defines “delinquency” as meaning any act which tends to debase or injure the morals, health, or welfare of “such child,” and specifically includes the use of tobacco in any fbrm, drinking intoxicating liquor, etc. That the legislative purpose was to make punishable any person who aids or encourages or causes any child to indulge in such practices as are mentioned in said article may be plausibly argued, and this may be true, but if such was the purpose, the Legislature did not use language so indicating. The words used are “in all cases where any child shall be a ‘delinquent child’ or a ‘neglected or dependent child,’ ” and each provision of said article pointedly relates to “such child.” We are not at liberty to write into the statutes any thing, merely because in our opinion same ought to be there We must take the law as we find it. Endeavoring so to do, we are compelled to hold that the trial judge erred in refusing the* special charge asked, and that for this error the case must be reversed, and it is so ordered. 
      other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     