Arseneaux v. State
| Citation | 140 S.W. 776 |
| Parties | ARSENEAUX v. STATE. |
| Decision Date | 08 November 1911 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas |
Appeal from Criminal District Court, Harris County; C. W. Robinson, Judge.
Ed Arseneaux was convicted of larceny, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Lane, Wolters & Storey, for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The indictment charges appellant with the theft of property of Hutchinson & Mitchell, a firm composed of Moses Hutchinson and H. L. Mitchell, out of the possession of said Hutchinson & Mitchell, then and there without the consent of said Hutchinson & Mitchell, with intent then and there to deprive said owner of the value of same.
The only question presented for revision is the indictment is defective, in that it does not sufficiently negative the consent of the joint ownership. This position seems to be well taken under quite a lot of authorities. Where the indictment alleges joint ownership of two or more persons, the nonconsent of each owner must be alleged, and it will not be sufficient to allege the want of consent jointly. McIntosh v. State, 18 Tex. App. 286; Taylor v. State, 18 Tex. App. 490; Williams v. State, 23 Tex. App. 620, 5 S. W. 129; Taylor v. State, 23 Tex. App. 640, 5 S. W. 141; Young v. State, 59 S. W. 891. Quite a lot of authorities might be mentioned as supporting this proposition. These, we think, are sufficient.
The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. State, 21335.
...an appropriation of the note. Appellant cites us to a number of cases as supporting his contention, among them being Arseneaux v. State, 63 Tex.Cr.R. 566, 140 S.W. 776. In our opinion, the cases cited are not applicable here. In those cases it was not alleged that the property was taken wit......
- Toliver v. State