
    SHORES v. STATE.
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Oct. 30, 1912.)
    1. Forgery (§ 34) — Variance Between Allegations and Proof.
    Where an indictment alleged that accused forged the name of “Mrs. J. N. Grigg” to a check, and the proof showed that her name was Eliza A. Griggs, but that ishe married J. N. Griggs, and generally went by the name of Mrs. J. N. Griggs, there was no fatal variance.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Forgery, Cent. Dig. §§ 85-102; Dec. Dig. § 34.]
    2. Forgery (§ 34) — Variance Between Allegations and Proof.
    Where an indictment charged the passing of a forged instrument on Ellis Carter, and the evidence showed that his name was Richard Ellis Carter, but that he went by the name and was called by his friends Ellis Carter, and was generally known in the community by that name, there was no variance.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Forgery, Cent. Dig. §§ 85-102; Dec. Dig. '§ 34.]
    Appeal from District Court, Taylor County; Thomas D. Blanton, Judge.
    R. D. Shores was convicted of passing a forged instrument, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Cunningham & Oliver, of Abilene, for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
    
      
       For other eases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep’r Indexes
    
   HARPER, J.

Appellant was prosecuted and convicted of passing a forged instrument, and his punishment assessed at two years’ confinement in the penitentiary.

The indictment alleged that appellant forged the name of Mrs. J. N. Grigg to a check. The proof showed that the name of the witness was Mrs. J. N. Griggs, and appellant moved to exclude the testimony on account of the variance in the proof and the allegation. This court has held adversely to appellant’s contention. Williams v. State, 5 Tex. App. 230; Ex parte Sawyers, 48 S. W. 512, and cases cited in section 626 of Branch’s Crim. Law. While Mrs. Griggs testified her name was Eliza A. Griggs, but that she married J. N. Griggs, and generally went by the name of Mrs. J. N. Griggs, this does not constitute a fatal variance.

The indictment charged that the instrument was passed on Ellis Carter. He testified his name was Richard Ellis Carter, but that he went by the name of Ellis Carter, and his friends all over the county called him Ellis Carter, and that was the name toy which he was most generally called and known in that community. This constituted no variance.

The only ground in the motion for a new trial alleges the insufficiency of the evidence. If the state’s testimony is true, it amply supports the verdict.

The judgment is affirmed.  