Hall v. State

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.

LATTIMORE, Judge.

Appellant relies here only on the fact that in his charge the court misstated the penalty as greater than that allowed by law, and the further fact that same was followed by the verdict and judgment for a greater penalty- thán fixed by statute. We overlooked this contention when we wrote originally.. To be exact this case is as follows: The indictment herein was returned July 26, 1927, alleging theft of property of the value of $5.00 on July 2, 1927. Trial was had in November of that year. No facts are before us, no statement of facts having been…