Brown v. State
| Decision Date | 16 March 1887 |
| Parties | BROWN v. STATE.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL> |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
O. L. Lockett, for appellant. Asst. Atty. Gen. Davidson, for the State.
It was not error to overrule the exceptions to the indictment. Said indictment contains all the allegations essential in charging the offense of embezzlement by an agent. Willson, Crim. Forms, 507-509, and authorities cited.
No error was committed in overruling defendant's application for continuance. One of the absent witnesses named in said application appeared and testified on the trial. The facts expected to be proved by the witnesses Abrams and Kennedy were wholly immaterial. As to the facts expected to be proved by the witness Brown, they were proved by the state's witness Moss, and were not disputed.
It is ingeniously and earnestly contended by counsel for defendant that the venue of the offense is not shown to be in Bosque county. It is shown by the evidence that the money charged to have been embezzled by defendant was received by him in Robertson county on the twenty-first of December, 1886. On the next day a witness saw him with a roll of paper money in Calvert, Robinson county. The money which defendant had received was paper money to the amount of $60, and silver money to the amount of $2. The witness Bennett, who saw the defendant with the roll of paper money, traveled and remained with him until the afternoon of the twenty-fifth of said December, when the defendant got on the train at Temple to go to Morgan, in Bosque county. This witness is quite positive that, up to the time the defendant took the train at Temple, he had not disposed of any of the paper money. Defendant arrived at Morgan on the said twenty-fifth of December, and on the morning of the next day had a settlement with Moss, his principal, and positively denied to Moss that he had collected any money for him from any one. It was stipulated in the contract of his employment, as the agent of Moss, that he should account to Moss at Morgan, Bosque county, for all notes and money received by him by virtue of his said agency.
Do these facts sufficiently establish the venue of the offense in Bosque, the county of the prosecution? We are of the opinion they do. Article 219 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides as follows: "The offense of embezzlement may be prosecuted in any county in which the offender may have taken or received the property, or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Urciolo v. State
...237, 238-41 (1958).14 Cited with approval in Couture v. State, 7 Md.App. 269, 272, 255 A.2d 84, 86 (1969).15 In Brown v. State, 23 Tex.App. 214, 4 S.W. 588 (1887); State v. Sullivan, 49 La.Ann. 197, 29 So. 688 (1896); People v. Goodrich, 142 Cal. 216, 75 P. 796 (1904); Woodward v. United St......
-
Allen v. State
...R. 552, 21 S. W. 367; Duncan v. State, 30 Tex. App. 1, 16 S. W. 753; Blackwell v. State, 29 Tex. App. 194, 15 S. W. 597; Brown v. State, 23 Tex. App. 214, 4 S. W. 588; Walker v. State, 13 Tex. App. 618, 44 Am. Rep. 716, note; Beatey v. State, 16 Tex. App. 421; Allison v. State, 14 Tex. App.......
-
Urciolo v. State
...in the county where the property was received or in the county in which the property was possessed. Among these are Brown v. State, 1887, 23 Tex.App. 214, 4 S.W. 588, 590 (since the defendant may not have conceived the fraudulent intent to appropriate the money to his own use 'until the ver......
-
Peddersen v. State
...in the county where the property was received or in the county in which the property was possessed. Among these are Brown v. State, 1887, 23 Tex.App. 214, 4 S.W. 588, 590 [since the defendant may not have conceived the fraudulent intent to appropriate the money to his own use 'until the ver......