Hall v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Hall v. State

3 S.W. 338, 22 Tex. Ct. App. 632, 1887 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 2

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedJanuary 8, 1887

DocketNo. 2074

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 3 S.W. 338 (Hall v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hall v. State, 3 S.W. 338, 22 Tex. Ct. App. 632, 1887 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 2 (Tex. Ct. App. 1887).

Pincite

Opinion

Willson, Judge.

The indictment alleges that J. G. Dohl was the owner of the stolen horse, and that said horse was taken from the possession of said J. G. Dohl. The evidence shows that J. G. Dohl was the owner of said horse, but was not in possession thereof at the time the same was stolen. Said horse, at the time of the theft, thereof, was in the possession of H. Dohl, who was holding the same for said J. G. Dohl, the owner. There is therefore a fatal variance between the allegation and the proof, with respect to the possession of the animal at the time of the theft.

In view of the facts of the case, the indictment should have alleged both the ownership and possession of the horse in [633]*633H. Dohl, or it should have alleged the ownership in J. G. Dohl, the general owner, and that it was taken from the possession of H. Dohl, who was holding possession thereof for said J. G. Dohl. (Bailey v. The State, 18 Texas Ct. App., 426; Frazier v. The State, Id., 434; Briggs v. The State, 20 Texas Ct. App., 106; Littleton v. The State, Id., 168; Bailey v. The State, Id., 68.)

Opinion delivered January 8, 1887.

Because the allegation as to the possession of the animal at the time it was stolen is not supported, but is contradicted, by the evidence, the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Willson, Judge.

The indictment alleges that J. G. Dohl was the owner of the stolen horse, and that said horse was taken from the possession of said J. G. Dohl. The evidence shows that J. G. Dohl was the owner of said horse, but was not in possession thereof at the time the same was stolen. Said horse, at the time of the theft, thereof, was in the possession of H. Dohl, who was holding the same for said J. G. Dohl, the owner. There is therefore a fatal variance between the allegation and the proof, with respect to the possession of the animal at the time of the theft.

In view of the facts of the case, the indictment should have alleged both the ownership and possession of the horse in [633]*633H. Dohl, or it should have alleged the ownership in J. G. Dohl, the general owner, and that it was taken from the possession of H. Dohl, who was holding possession thereof for said J. G. Dohl. (Bailey v. The State, 18 Texas Ct. App., 426; Frazier v. The State, Id., 434; Briggs v. The State, 20 Texas Ct. App., 106; Littleton v. The State, Id., 168; Bailey v. The State, Id., 68.)

Opinion delivered January 8, 1887.

Because the allegation as to the possession of the animal at the time it was stolen is not supported, but is contradicted, by the evidence, the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 S.W. 338, 22 Tex. Ct. App. 632, 1887 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 2, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hall-v-state-texapp-1887.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack