Donald v. State

418 S.W.2d 818, 1967 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1025
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas
DecidedJuly 19, 1967
DocketNo. 40527
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 418 S.W.2d 818 (Donald 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
Donald v. State, 418 S.W.2d 818, 1967 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1025 (Tex. 1967).

Opinion

OPINION

BELCHER, Judge.

The conviction is under Art. 567b, Vernon’s Ann.P.C., for the giving of a worthless check in the amount of $1506.40; the punishment was assessed at four years.

In May, 1964, the appellant was operating twenty-two retail service stations and also selling wholesale to four outlets in Dallas, with a sales volume of 750,000 to 1,000,000 gallons of gasoline per month. The gasoline was supplied to the appellant by three refineries. About May 1, 1964, he became involved financially, having a total indebtedness of around $400,000, and his three suppliers of gasoline placed him on a cash basis. During this time the appellant and La Gloria Oil and Gas Company of Tyler began negotiations for a loan and the refinancing of his business, and for the sale and purchase of gasoline. The $1,506.40 check signed by the appellant, dated July 9, 1964, payable to La Gloria Oil and Gas Company for gasoline is the basis of this prosecution.

Among the grounds urged by the appellant for reversal is that, the trial court erred in refusing his requested charge to the jury which had been timely and properly presented. The requested charge was as follows:

“If you believe from the evidence that the defendant was induced into issuing the check in question by the offer on the part of La Gloria Oil and Gas Company or one of its representatives that he could give a check for oil and gas delivered to him and make the check good from the sale of the gas at a later date, knowing that defendant must pay for it in this manner, or if you have a reasonable doubt thereof, you will say by your verdict not guilty.”

The appellant testified in part as follows:

“Q When was this that you and Mr. Cain arrived at some agreement, or [819]*819was the agreement with someone else?
“A Well, as I said, it was toward the latter part of June, I called Mr. Cain and I asked him if anything had been consummated that we could actually talk about. And he said, ‘Well, to this point, there isn’t anything actually consummated. It is just going to take a little more time, but, ‘he says, ‘One thing that will help the situation,’ he says ‘this is an ungodly amount of gasoline for an operation,’ and he says, ‘To substantiate the gallonage, to prove to La Gloria Oil & Gas that you do sell this much gasoline, and that they would have a sizeable account and an account that they could depend on,’ he says, ‘You ought to start buying gasoline from us.’ I said, ‘Well, John, there isn’t a way in the world that I can start buying gasoline from you unless you want to deliver it to me on credit.’
“Q. And this was at this conversation you told him that?
“A Yes, sir.
“Q And what was his reaction to that?
“A He said, ‘Well, I don’t know if that could be worked out at the present time, because of your debt to Anderson. ‘But,’ he says, ‘There must be a way that we can get the situation started, in order to benefit all .parties concerned.’
“Q Did you all make an agreement at that time as to your operation at all?
“A Not at that particular time. No we did not.
“Q When did you all get together again ?
“A A few days after that, Mr. Mason came to Dallas.
“Q Do you mean by himself? Or with someone ?
“A He was by himself.
“Q Did he come to your office?
“A He came to my office. And we discussed the entire situation, the loan and the availability of credit and the prospect of me buying gasoline from them, etc., and through the process of conversation, we arrived at a decision where I would start buying gasoline from them.
“Q What was this agreement with them as to how you would buy gasoline from them?
“A We reached an agreement on this basis. That, number one, Gas Mart had some Judgments on record and I was operating so close with the money situation and had so many taxes that were owed, etc. that—
“Q And you told Mr. Mason about this ?
“A Yes, and Mr. Cain and Mr. Jones also — they were aware of that. And we arrived at a way to handle the gasoline was for me to send a blank check down to the refinery.
“Q And what were the further details of this agreement?
“A Well. I was to establish this checking account, and as I sold the gasoline, put the money in the bank to clear the checks.
“Q And this was their agreement with you?
“A Yes.
“Q Now, this was your operation which started in July of 1964. Is that right ? Somewhere the first part of July?
“A Yes, yes.
[820]*820“Q Now, right after you started this operation, were you contacted by Mr. Mason or Mr. Cain again?
“A After I started sending the trucks down to the Tyler refinery with these blank checks with them, I believe 4 or 5 loads of gasoline had been received and 4 or 5 checks had been delivered to the Tyler refinery, and I stand to be corrected on this, but I believe they had deposited the first checks, and we made our initial deposit. Mr. Mason called me — and

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

Related

Hefner v. State
735 S.W.2d 608 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1987)
Ledtje v. State
425 S.W.2d 651 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1968)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
418 S.W.2d 818, 1967 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1025, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/donald-v-state-texcrimapp-1967.