
    JONES v. STATE.
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    June 21, 1911.)
    Homicide (§ 142) — Indictment — Issues, Proof, and Vabiance.
    The variance between an indictment, charging accused with the killing of “Tom Jones,” and the evidence, showing that the name of decedent was “Jim Jones,” is fatal, requiring a reversal of the conviction, in the absence of evidence that decedent was as well known by the name of “Jim Jones” as “Tom Jones.”
    [Ed. Note. — Eor other cases, see Homicide, Cent. Dig. § 254; Dee. Dig. § 142.]
    Appeal from District Court, Freestone County; H. B. Daviss, Judge.
    Margaret Jones, alias Maggie Jones, was convicted of manslaughter, and she appeals.
    Reversed and remanded.,
    R. L. Williford and Bell & Fryer, for appellant.
    C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State. ,
    
      
      For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep’r Indexes
    
   DAVIDSON, P. J.

Appellant was convicted of manslaughter; her punishment being assessed at two years’ confinement in the penitentiary.

The indictment charges appellant with hilling Tom Jones. The evidence shows the name of the deceased was Jim Jones. There is nothing in the record to show that the deceased was known as well by the name of Jim Jones as Tom Jones, but all .the way through the record shows the deceased’s name was Jim Jones, and not Tom Jones. This may be a mistake in the record. However that may be, the indictment alleges the killing of one man, and the evidence shows the killing of another. This is such a variance as requires a reversal of the judgment. The court submitted to the jury the case upon the theory that Tom Jones was killed. The record fails to show that there was such a man as Tom Jones.

The judgment is reversed, and 'the cause is remanded.  