Peralto v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Peralto v. State

17 Tex. Ct. App. 578, 1885 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 31

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided February 14, 1885·No. No. 1780·Published

Opinion

White, Presiding Judge.

The indictment, which was for theft, does not specifically charge that the intent was to deprive the owners of the stolen property “ of the value of the same,” and it is only by inference and intendment that these statutory words, made essential in the definition of theft, can be supplied. (State v. Sherlock, 26 Texas, 106; Ridgeway v. The State, 41 Texas, 231; Jones v. The State, 12 Texas Ct. App., 424; Tallant v. The State, 14 Texas Ct. App., 234.)

The indictment being defective, the judgment is reversed and the prosecution dismissed.

Beversed and dismissed.

[Opinion delivered February 14, 1885.]

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

White, Presiding Judge.

The indictment, which was for theft, does not specifically charge that the intent was to deprive the owners of the stolen property “ of the value of the same,” and it is only by inference and intendment that these statutory words, made essential in the definition of theft, can be supplied. (State v. Sherlock, 26 Texas, 106; Ridgeway v. The State, 41 Texas, 231; Jones v. The State, 12 Texas Ct. App., 424; Tallant v. The State, 14 Texas Ct. App., 234.)

The indictment being defective, the judgment is reversed and the prosecution dismissed.

Beversed and dismissed.

[Opinion delivered February 14, 1885.]

Peralto v. State, 17 Tex. Ct. App. 578, 1885 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 31 (Tex. Ct. App. 1885).

Pincite

17 Tex. Ct. App. 578 (Peralto v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related