Mitner v. State

On Motion for Rehearing.

It is urged that Witmer expected to ultimately secure insurance policies as a result of the transaction with appellant, and, the delivery of the policies being something which was bound to occur in the future, that the facts will not support a charge for swindling. If the false representations by appellant were in the nature of promises to be carried out in the future, his contention would, be sound, as illustrated by Windham v. State, 71 Tex. Cr. R. 384, 160 S. W. 72; Martin v. State, 36 Tex. Cr. R. 125, 35 S. W. 976, and other cases to which we have been referred. In…