Wesley v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Wesley v. State

73 S.W. 960, 45 Tex. Crim. 64, 1903 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 99

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedApril 15, 1903

DocketNo. 2441.

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 73 S.W. 960 (Wesley 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

Wesley v. State, 73 S.W. 960, 45 Tex. Crim. 64, 1903 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 99 (Tex. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

DAVIDSOH, Presiding Judge.

Conviction for theft, the penalty assessed being one year’s confinement in the county jail.

The indictment is questioned by motion in arrest of judgment because it does not sufficiently negative the consent of the owners. It is charged that the ownership was in the firm of McMullen & Marshall, consisting of T. H. McMullen and Hed Marshall. The proof shows there, were two T. H. McMullens,■ and the McMullen mentioned in the indictment under the evidence was “Jr.,” and that by reason of this fact there is a variance; and also that the general allegation that the property was taken without the consent of the owners is not sufficient; that the indictment should have specifically negatived the consent of each owner. The indictment is sufficient with reference to the allegation of want of consent of the owners. Williams v. State, 19 Texas Crim. App., 276. There is no variance by reason of the fact that the alleged owner was “Jr.,” and not “Sr.” Windom v. State, 6 Texas Ct. Rep., 908.

With reference to those matters which pertain to the facts or grow out of supposed errors committed by the court in the charge, the evidence can not be considered. The statement of facts is in the same condition as in Hess v. State, 30 Texas Crim. App., 437. And see, also, Morse v. State, 39 Texas Crim. Rep., 566; Wilson v. State, 34 Texas Crim. Rep., 355.

As the record is presented, no error is shown, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

DAVIDSOH, Presiding Judge.

Conviction for theft, the penalty assessed being one year’s confinement in the county jail.

The indictment is questioned by motion in arrest of judgment because it does not sufficiently negative the consent of the owners. It is charged that the ownership was in the firm of McMullen & Marshall, consisting of T. H. McMullen and Hed Marshall. The proof shows there, were two T. H. McMullens,■ and the McMullen mentioned in the indictment under the evidence was “Jr.,” and that by reason of this fact there is a variance; and also that the general allegation that the property was taken without the consent of the owners is not sufficient; that the indictment should have specifically negatived the consent of each owner. The indictment is sufficient with reference to the allegation of want of consent of the owners. Williams v. State, 19 Texas Crim. App., 276. There is no variance by reason of the fact that the alleged owner was “Jr.,” and not “Sr.” Windom v. State, 6 Texas Ct. Rep., 908.

With reference to those matters which pertain to the facts or grow out of supposed errors committed by the court in the charge, the evidence can not be considered. The statement of facts is in the same condition as in Hess v. State, 30 Texas Crim. App., 437. And see, also, Morse v. State, 39 Texas Crim. Rep., 566; Wilson v. State, 34 Texas Crim. Rep., 355.

As the record is presented, no error is shown, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 S.W. 960, 45 Tex. Crim. 64, 1903 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 99, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wesley-v-state-texcrimapp-1903.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack