Steiner v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Steiner v. State

26 S.W. 214, 33 Tex. Crim. 291, 1894 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 94

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedMay 2, 1894

DocketNo. 434.

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 26 S.W. 214 (Steiner v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Steiner v. State, 26 S.W. 214, 33 Tex. Crim. 291, 1894 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 94 (Tex. 1894).

Pincite

Opinion

HUBT, Presiding- Judge.

Appeal from Lavaca County. The indictment contains two counts. The substance of the first is, that appellant was the secretary of the city of Hallettsville, and was also the superintendent of the waterworks and electric lights of said city, and as such superintendent was charged with the collection of money belonging to said city, and as such officer, and by virtue of said office and being superintendent of said waterworks and electric lights, there came into his possession the Sum of $200, the property of the city, and that defendant did secrete for the purpose of converting, and did convert, the sum to his own use and benefit. This count is drawn under Penal Code, article 786, and does not allege that the city was incorporated. This is not necessary. Price v. The State, 41 Texas, 215. Nor does it set out (plead) the ordinance creating appellant secretary and superintendent of waterworks and electric lights of said city. This is not required, but is a matter of proof. The second count is drawn under Penal Code, article 103, and it alleges that the city was incorporated. If the amount embezzled is $20 or over, the punishment is the same under both counts. The second count is based upon article 103. This count alleges the money to be the property of the city; that the *294 money came into Ms possession by virtue of bis office and agency; that tbe appellant converted to bis own use (fraudulently) tbe money, etc. These allegations were in proper form, and tbe count is sufficient. Were these allegations proved on tbe trial? They were, clearly. Appellant was appointed superintendent of tbe waterworks and electric lights by ordinance of tbe city. This ordinance was introduced in evidence over tbe objections of defendant. In this there was no error. Appellant requested tbe court to instruct tbe jury to tbe effect, that to convict they must find that appellant “fraudulently converted tbe money to bis own use,” etc. Such an instruction bad very clearly been submitted to tbe jury in tbe main charge, and should not have been repeated. Appellant complains because tbe court failed and refused to submit to tbe jury tbe question as to whether a less amount than $20 was or was not, at tbe same time, converted by appellant, and hence a misdemeanor. All tbe circumstances tend to present a felony and notMng less, and tbe court did right in submitting no other offense to tbe consideration of tbe jury.

Tbe judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Judges all present and concurring.

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

HUBT, Presiding- Judge.

Appeal from Lavaca County. The indictment contains two counts. The substance of the first is, that appellant was the secretary of the city of Hallettsville, and was also the superintendent of the waterworks and electric lights of said city, and as such superintendent was charged with the collection of money belonging to said city, and as such officer, and by virtue of said office and being superintendent of said waterworks and electric lights, there came into his possession the Sum of $200, the property of the city, and that defendant did secrete for the purpose of converting, and did convert, the sum to his own use and benefit. This count is drawn under Penal Code, article 786, and does not allege that the city was incorporated. This is not necessary. Price v. The State, 41 Texas, 215. Nor does it set out (plead) the ordinance creating appellant secretary and superintendent of waterworks and electric lights of said city. This is not required, but is a matter of proof. The second count is drawn under Penal Code, article 103, and it alleges that the city was incorporated. If the amount embezzled is $20 or over, the punishment is the same under both counts. The second count is based upon article 103. This count alleges the money to be the property of the city; that the *294 money came into Ms possession by virtue of bis office and agency; that tbe appellant converted to bis own use (fraudulently) tbe money, etc. These allegations were in proper form, and tbe count is sufficient. Were these allegations proved on tbe trial? They were, clearly. Appellant was appointed superintendent of tbe waterworks and electric lights by ordinance of tbe city. This ordinance was introduced in evidence over tbe objections of defendant. In this there was no error. Appellant requested tbe court to instruct tbe jury to tbe effect, that to convict they must find that appellant “fraudulently converted tbe money to bis own use,” etc. Such an instruction bad very clearly been submitted to tbe jury in tbe main charge, and should not have been repeated. Appellant complains because tbe court failed and refused to submit to tbe jury tbe question as to whether a less amount than $20 was or was not, at tbe same time, converted by appellant, and hence a misdemeanor. All tbe circumstances tend to present a felony and notMng less, and tbe court did right in submitting no other offense to tbe consideration of tbe jury.

Tbe judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Judges all present and concurring.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 S.W. 214, 33 Tex. Crim. 291, 1894 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 94, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/steiner-v-state-texcrimapp-1894.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack