Daggett v. State
| Decision Date | 02 March 1898 |
| Citation | 44 S.W. 842 |
| Parties | DAGGETT v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Ols. Lattimore, for appellant. Mann Trice, for the State.
This case was affirmed at a previous day of this term, and now comes before us on motion for rehearing. Appellant insists that the evidence does not support the allegation as to possession of the alleged burglarized house, and the property therein situated, in John P. Daggett, as charged in the indictment. On a review of the evidence in this respect, we agree to this contention. Some of the cases go to a considerable extent towards holding that the possession of property can be alleged in the owner, however remote he may be from the property itself, and although another is charged with the immediate custody of the same. All these cases are based on the idea that the custodian is the agent or servant of the owner, and holds the bare custody of the property. It is sometimes difficult to determine how far this principle extends. In Graves v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 42 S. W. 300, we believe this doctrine was carried as far as it can be reasonably extended. If the person holding possession of the property for the owner has a bare custody, and not a disposition of the property, and this is merely temporary,—if he is a mere servant of the owner,—the possession may well be alleged in the owner of the property, ignoring the possession of the servant. But that does not appear to be this case. It is true that Ed Jahn was in the employ of John P. Daggett, but he was not located on the same place where John P. Daggett resided. He had charge of the place of the said John P. Daggett, situated some eight miles from where he lived. He appears to have had full management of said place, and all the property thereon situated. The owner of the place, John P. Daggett, visited said premises only occasionally. The fowls and chicken house in question were in the immediate possession of Ed Jahn, and they were looked after and attended to exclusively by said Ed Jahn and his wife. The latter, according to the testimony, had an interest in the increase of the fowls. The house alleged to have been burglarized was a small chicken house, in which these fowls roosted. Jahn was in the habit of closing up the door of said chicken house each night. The testimony shows that on the night in question one Priest, who was in his employ,...
To continue reading
Request your trial