Presley v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Presley v. State

6 S.W. 540, 24 Tex. Ct. App. 494, 1887 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 229

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedDecember 14, 1887

DocketNo. 2620

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 6 S.W. 540 (Presley 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

Presley v. State, 6 S.W. 540, 24 Tex. Ct. App. 494, 1887 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 229 (Tex. Ct. App. 1887).

Pincite

Opinion

Hurt,. Judge.

This conviction was for fraudulently selling, trading and disposing of certain mortgaged property. It is alleged in the indictment that the property was sold, traded and disposed of to a certain person whose name is to the grand jurors unknown. Upon the trial it was shown that the property —a horse—was traded to one Ike Thomas, and this fact was evidently known to the grand jury, or could have been known by the smallest degree of diligence.

If the name of the person to whom the property was sold or traded was known to the grand jury, it was essential that it should have been given in the indictment. The Assistant Attorney General contends that, since the question is the intent to defraud, it matters not to whom the property was sold or traded. While this is true, the indictment should nevertheless inform the accused of the name of the person to whom the property was sold or traded. (Bush v. The State, 1 Texas, 455; Bunch v. The State, 1 Texas, 609; Schwartz v. The State, 25 Texas, 764.)

The indictment in this case is sufficient; but the proof fails to sustain the allegation that the name of the person to whom the property was sold or traded was unknown to the grand jury. As above stated, the proof shows beyond doubt that the horse was traded to Ike Thomas, which fact could have been ascertained by the use of any diligence whatever.

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

Hurt,. Judge.

This conviction was for fraudulently selling, trading and disposing of certain mortgaged property. It is alleged in the indictment that the property was sold, traded and disposed of to a certain person whose name is to the grand jurors unknown. Upon the trial it was shown that the property —a horse—was traded to one Ike Thomas, and this fact was evidently known to the grand jury, or could have been known by the smallest degree of diligence.

If the name of the person to whom the property was sold or traded was known to the grand jury, it was essential that it should have been given in the indictment. The Assistant Attorney General contends that, since the question is the intent to defraud, it matters not to whom the property was sold or traded. While this is true, the indictment should nevertheless inform the accused of the name of the person to whom the property was sold or traded. (Bush v. The State, 1 Texas, 455; Bunch v. The State, 1 Texas, 609; Schwartz v. The State, 25 Texas, 764.)

The indictment in this case is sufficient; but the proof fails to sustain the allegation that the name of the person to whom the property was sold or traded was unknown to the grand jury. As above stated, the proof shows beyond doubt that the horse was traded to Ike Thomas, which fact could have been ascertained by the use of any diligence whatever.

The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 S.W. 540, 24 Tex. Ct. App. 494, 1887 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 229, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/presley-v-state-texapp-1887.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack