Gatlin v. State
This text of 39 Tex. 130 (Gatlin v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The appellant is charged with stealing one mule, of the value of fifty dollars, and one saddle valued at twenty-five dollars, the property of Harry Mus-grove. The proof shows the general ownership of the property to have been in Bennett Musgrove, but it also shows a special ownership of the property in Harry Mus-grove. Where there is a general ownership in one person and a special in another, in the property stolen, the indictment may lay the property in either. (2 Bishop’s Crim. Prac., 720; Langford v. The State, 8 Texas, 105.)
We deem this a sufficient notice of the errors assigned in this case. ■
The judgment of the District Court is affirmed. ■
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
39 Tex. 130, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gatlin-v-state-tex-1873.