Green v. State

• Decision Date: 03 May 1890
• Parties: GREEN <I>v.</I> STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

13 S.W. 784

GREEN

v. STATE.

Court of Appeals of Texas.

May 3, 1890.

Appeal from district court, Houston county; F. A. WILLIAMS, Judge.

Indictment of John Green for larceny of money. Zach Tolliver, the alleged injured party, testified, in substance, that he and six or seven others, including the defendant, spent the greater part of Christmas Eve night, 1889, playing cards in an apartment in the rear of a saloon in Crockett, Tex. When defendant had lost all of his money, he asked the witness to lend him 25 cents, which amount the witness agreed to give him, but for some reason he failed to do so. Soon afterwards the defendant knelt down near where the witness was kneeling. Presently the witness felt a touch on his hip pocket, in which he had his purse of money. Looking around instantly, he saw the defendant's hand, in which he held the witness' purse of money, passing from witness' to his own pocket. Witness was winning at the time, and said nothing to defendant, believing and hoping that defendant was in jest, and would soon return the purse and money. When, however, the defendant started off towards the alley, a few minutes later, witness called upon him to stop and return the purse and money. Defendant stopped in the dark, about 20 feet from where he took the money, and denied that he had it. A light was then procured, and the purse was found on the ground where the witness stopped the defendant. When taken, the purse contained $20, consisting of one $5 bill, two $2 bills, two $2.50 gold pieces, and the rest in silver. When recovered the purse contained only one of the gold pieces, one of the $2 bills, and some small change in silver. Witness then demanded the return of his money, which defendant denied having. The witness then induced the defendant to re-enter the apartment to await daylight, for the purpose of being searched by the sheriff. He managed to keep defendant in the room for some time, but finally the defendant left, and witness never recovered his money. Others of the parties present, testifying for the state and defendant, narrated the transaction substantially as did the witness Tolliver, except that none of them saw the defendant remove the purse from Tolliver's pocket, or have it in his hand. It was shown by two or more witnesses that on the morning of the next day the defendant was seen in possession of $12 or $15 in silver and currency. A witness for the defense testified that he loaned the defendant $15, $20, or $25 on the morning after the alleged theft, and that the money thus loaned him was in currency and silver.

Adams & Adams, for appellant. W. L. Davidson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

WHITE, P. J.

This appeal is from a judgment of conviction for the crime of theft from the person. Pen. Code, arts. 744, 745. The two modes by which this offense may be committed, as laid down in article 745, subd. 2, were separately charged, two counts being used in the indictment for that purpose. The property alleged to have been stolen is described as "one five-dollar bill in money, of the value of five dollars." A motion was made in arrest of judgment upon the ground, mainly, that the property was insufficiently described, if, indeed, it was described at all. It is insisted that it should have been described as "bank-bills" or "paper currency money of the United States;" that simply to allege "one five-dollar bill in money" describes nothing. Our statute provides the rule with regard to the description of property whenever it becomes necessary to give it in an indictment, as follows, viz.: "When it becomes necessary to describe property of any kind in an indictment, a general description of the same by name, kind, quantity, number, and ownership, if known, shall be sufficient," etc. Code Crim. Proc. art. 427. This article is a new provision added by the revisers to our Code of Criminal Procedure, and dispenses with the great particularity required prior thereto in the description of property, especially money. Willson, Crim. St. § 1256. A particular description of the property stolen is not necessary; if it be described specially by the name usually applied to it, that will be sufficient. Dignowitty v. State, 17 Tex. 521. A bank-bill or currency-bill, when spoken of as money, is usually called "a bill," without adding the words "bank-bill" or "United States currency-bill." When the words, "one five-dollar bill in money," are used to designate it, we understand that a paper bill, of the denomination and value of five dollars, — a circulating medium which passes as money, — is meant. In Bryant v. State, 16 Tex. App. 144, the stolen property was described as "one twenty-dollar gold piece, of the value of twenty dollars, and one five-dollar bill in money, of the value of five dollars," etc. It was held, on motion in arrest of judgment in that case, that the description was sufficient, under the provisions of article 732 of the Penal Code, which declares "money" to be...