State v. Perkins
This text of 45 Tex. 10 (State v. Perkins) 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 indictment charges the defendant with receiving stolen goods.
While it is unnecessary, in an indictment for this offense, to name the original thief by whom, the goods were stolen, or to allege the time and place of the original larceny, it is essential to state, if known, the name of the owner of the goods. (2 Bishop’s Cr. Prac., sec. 928.)
The person from whom they were received must also be alleged in. the indictment. (The State v. Juro, 13 Ind., 338; The State v. Beaty, Phill., 52.)
Li both of these essential particulars the indictment is defective. The exceptions to it were therefore properly sustained.
The judgment is affirmed.
Aeeirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
45 Tex. 10, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-perkins-tex-1876.