Bell v. State

205 S.W. 986, 84 Tex. Crim. 160, 1918 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 323
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas
DecidedOctober 23, 1918
DocketNo. 5129.
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 205 S.W. 986 (Bell v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bell v. State, 205 S.W. 986, 84 Tex. Crim. 160, 1918 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 323 (Tex. 1918).

Opinion

DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.

—Appellant was convicted of the *161 theft of a bale of seed cotton valued at one hundred dollars, his punishment being assessed at three years confinement in the penitentiary.

He made a motion to quash the indictment because it charged no offense against the law, and because the description of the property was' not sufficient to require him to plead, or form the basis of conviction, and further, because the indictment, in alleging the theft of one bale of seed cotton, failed to give its weight and value. The indictment charged that appellant “did then and there unlawfully and fraudulently take from the possession of one.Jim Ellison one bale of seed cotton, of the value of one hundred dollars, the same then and there being the corporeal personal property,” etc., of Jim Ellison. We are of opinion the indictment is sufficient. It was not necessary to give the weight of the bale of cotton. There were sufficient allegations to show that it was" a felony, and that it was a bale of cotton, and that it was worth one hundred dollars.

Appellant also contends in his motion for new trial that the court committed error in permitting the witness Ellison to testify that a bale of seed cottop usually weighed about 1500 pounds. Just how this arose is not shown, even in the motion for new trial, and if there was_ an exception reserved in the form of a bill it is not presented in the record. We are of opinion there is no sufficient error shown by this record to require a reversal.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Wood v. State
632 S.W.2d 734 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1982)
Clark v. State
95 S.W.2d 1309 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1936)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
205 S.W. 986, 84 Tex. Crim. 160, 1918 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 323, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bell-v-state-texcrimapp-1918.