Pool v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Pool v. State

8 S.W. 817, 25 Tex. Ct. App. 661, 1888 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 127

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided June 16, 1888·No. No. 6138·Published

Opinion

White, Presiding Judge.

The only inculpatory evidence against defendant on the trial in the court below was that of the witness Horace Hunter, and his testimony raises a strong presumption that he was an accomplice ot particeps criminis in the theft of the horse. If so, then we look in vain for any corroboration of his testimony. If he did in fact give defendant a saddle in part payment for the horse when he purchased him, doubtless the fact that defendant had such a saddle might at least have‘been proven by some one else.

We are of opinion the evidence as disclosed in this record is insufficient to support the conviction, and the judgment is therefore reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

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

White, Presiding Judge.

The only inculpatory evidence against defendant on the trial in the court below was that of the witness Horace Hunter, and his testimony raises a strong presumption that he was an accomplice ot particeps criminis in the theft of the horse. If so, then we look in vain for any corroboration of his testimony. If he did in fact give defendant a saddle in part payment for the horse when he purchased him, doubtless the fact that defendant had such a saddle might at least have‘been proven by some one else.

We are of opinion the evidence as disclosed in this record is insufficient to support the conviction, and the judgment is therefore reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Pool v. State, 8 S.W. 817, 25 Tex. Ct. App. 661, 1888 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 127 (Tex. Ct. App. 1888).

Pincite

8 S.W. 817 (Pool v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.