Alford v. State
| Decision Date | 26 November 1892 |
| Citation | 20 S.W. 553 |
| Parties | ALFORD v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from district court, Val Verde county; T. A. FULLER, Judge.
Bill Alford was convicted of altering the brand upon cattle with intent to defraud, and appeals. Affirmed.
Joseph Jones, for appellant. R. L. Henry, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was convicted of altering the brand upon cattle not his own, without the owner's consent and with intent to defraud. The indictment alleged ownership in W. F. Aaron, and the testimony disclosed the fact to be that he was the agent of one Roach, and had the actual care, control, and management of the cattle at the time the brand was altered upon them. Upon the trial the defendant objected to evidence showing Aaron's alleged ownership, because, under article 760 of the Penal Code, the ownership could only be averred in Roach, the actual owner. In other words, it is contended that ownership, under said article, is not constituted, as in cases of theft, by actual care, control, and management of the property. We are of opinion that such possession is sufficient to constitute ownership under the cited article, and that in this respect there is no difference between the law of theft and altering brands. Under statutes in this state prohibiting and punishing fraudulent acquisition of property, without consent of the owner, ownership is constituted by the actual care, control, and management of the property, and it is sufficient that the indictment allege ownership in such person, whether it be for theft or altering brands with intent to defraud. Such fact being alleged, and such possession shown, ownership is proved. Alteration of a brand with intent to defraud is but a species of theft, and by statute is punished as theft. The state, in order to sustain its case, must prove the allegation; otherwise there will be a variance, and the accused should be acquitted. The cattle were branded in December, 1888, just prior to Christmas, and on the following day driven by defendant and others across the Rio Grande river, into the republic of Mexico. In May, 1889, Roach, the actual owner, recovered four head of his cattle in Mexico, one of which he recognized as having been formerly on his ranch in Texas. The brand on all the cattle had been altered in the same manner as those branded by defendant the previous December, and when recovered had been changed about three or four months, as well as the witness could...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Elliott v. State
...such real owner, if known. It is held in a number of cases that live stock cannot of their own volition change owners. Alford v. State, 31 Tex. Cr. R. 299, 20 S. W. 553; Denton v. State, 69 S. W. 142; Taylor v. State, 75 S. W. 35. That the owner is out of the state when the property is stol......
-
Schackey v. State
...309, 12 S. W. 1104; Floyd v. State, 29 Tex. App. 349, 16 S. W. 188; Walker v. State, 29 Tex. App. 621, 16 S. W. 548; Alford v. State, 31 Tex. Cr. R. 299, 20 S. W. 553. It is not necessary to cite further authorities on this Now, as to the question of accessory, our statute provides that: "A......
-
Steen v. State, 18561.
...knowledge that a crime is to be or has been committed does not make the person having such knowledge an accomplice. See Alford v. State, 31 Tex.Cr.R. 299, 20 S.W. 553; Prewett v. State, 41 Tex.Cr.R. 262, 53 S.W. Finding no reversible error in the record, the judgment of the trial court is a......
-
Villareal v. State
...75, P. C. 1911; Burrell v. State, 18 Tex. 713; Golden v. State, 18 Tex. App. 637; Noftsinger v. State, 7 Tex. App. 302; Alford v. State, 31 Tex. Cr. R. 299, 20 S. W. 553. In this case the most the evidence would tend to show is that Praxedis Villareal may have been present when his son Gorg......