Adams v. State

• Decision Date: 15 May 1895
• Parties: ADAMS v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

31 S.W. 372

ADAMS v. STATE.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 15, 1895.

Appeal from district court, Hill county; J. M. Hall, Judge.

George Adams was convicted of the theft of a horse, and appeals. Affirmed.

Winfrey & Parr, for appellant. Mann Trice, Asst. Atty. Gen., for State.

HURT, P. J.

The appellant in this case was convicted of theft of a horse, and given a term of five years in the penitentiary, and from the judgment and sentence of the lower court he prosecutes this appeal.

The appellant assigns as error the failure of the court to charge on circumstantial evidence. The facts of the case show that the horse in question was placed in a pasture. He was seen by the witness Lowe on the day of the alleged theft, just outside of said pasture, near a road which led along the fence; and the defendant was just ahead of the colt, which seemed to be following him. He told said witness, as he passed him, that the colt had just jumped out of the pasture, and that he was following him, and that he was going to drive him back. At some distance further on, in the same road which led along the pasture fence, he was met by the witness Counts, and was then driving said colt along the road. Defendant offered to sell the said colt to the witness Counts. He told him that the colt had the distemper, and that he had been riding him, and he was afraid it would not hold out to make the trip he was on. Witness told him he had no use for it in its then condition, and did not care to purchase it. Appellant insisted on selling it, and finally witness asked him how much he wanted for it. Appellant said $2.50. Witness declined to pay that much, and finally witness said he would give $2 for it, and appellant accepted the proposition, and sold him the colt for $2. Defendant also told witness that he had raised the colt, and made him a bill of sale to the colt for the sum of $2. This was the testimony regarding the taking of the colt. If said colt had jumped out of the pasture, as stated by appellant, said witness Lowe saw him at or about the time he was in the act of taking possession of the colt, and the witness Counts met him in a very short time thereafter. But, if it be conceded that no witness saw him in the very act of taking possession of said colt, yet the testimony places defendant in juxtaposition to the main fact, which is the act of taking in this case, so that the omission to give the charge on circumstantial evidence was not calculated to injure defendant's rights. See Baldwin v. State, 31 Tex. Cr. R. 589, 21 S....