Grissom v. State
| Decision Date | 25 January 1899 |
| Citation | 49 S.W. 93 |
| Parties | GRISSOM v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from district court, Grayson county; Don. A. Bliss, Judge.
John Grissom was convicted of theft from the person, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Mann Trice, for the State.
Appellant was convicted of theft from the person, and his punishment assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for a term of six years; hence this appeal.
He interposed a motion to quash the indictment, as well as a motion to arrest the judgment. The grounds of both motions are based upon the alleged insufficient description of the property charged to have been stolen. The property is described as follows: "One watch and one pocketknife, and two one-dollar bills." This description is sufficient as to the watch and pocketknife. It was not necessary to describe the watch as being a gold watch, a silver watch, or a brass watch; nor was it necessary to describe the peculiarities of the knife. In fact, the description of the knife was sufficient when it was alleged to be a pocketknife. Its color, length, etc., were not necessary to be stated. The description of the watch and knife being sufficient, it is unnecessary to discuss the question as to whether the two one-dollar bills were sufficiently described.
The fourth assignment of error is predicated upon the action of the court in overruling the motion for new trial. Said motion sets out three grounds. The first and second relate to the sufficiency of the evidence, and the third to the overruling of the motion to quash the indictment. We are of opinion that the evidence is sufficient to support the judgment. There is a conflict in the evidence as to the intent with which defendant took the property. If his contention is correct, he took it for the purpose of taking care of it at the request of the alleged owner. This is denied by the owner, and there is quite a lot of testimony which corroborates the owner in regard to the fact that the property was taken from his person while he was asleep, without his knowledge or consent. These issues were properly submitted to the jury in the charge of the court.
The fifth assignment of error asserts "that the fourth paragraph of the court's charge was manifestly unjust to appellant." This paragraph of the charge is an application of the law to the facts in the usual form; that is, if the jury believed beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant privately and fraudulently took from the person...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wood v. State, 67486
...2 knives, & one ring," Campbell v. State, 61 Tex.Cr.R. 504, 135 S.W. 548 (1911); "one watch & one pocket knife," Grissom v. State, 40 Tex.Cr.R. 146, 49 S.W. 93 (1899); "on (sic) horse," Barner v. State, 20 S.W. 559 (Tex.Cr.App.1892); "one five dollar bill in money," Green v. State, 28 Tex.A......
-
Mays v. State
...the statute, Art. 21.09, supra, this court has upheld as sufficient the following: "One watch and one pocketknife * * *": Grissom v. State, 40 Tex.Cr.R. 146, 49 S.W. 93; "* * * Four dollars in money, two knives, and one ring": Campbell v. State, 61 Tex.Cr.R. 504, 135 S.W. 548; "* * * one su......
-
Ward v. State
... ... Peters v. State, 100 ... Ala. 10, 14 So. 896 ... In ... Johnson et al. v. State, 42 Tex. Cr. R. 103, 58 S.W ... 69, the court held that the alleged stolen property was ... sufficiently described as "one watch, of the value of ... $55." And the case of Grissom v. State, 40 Tex ... Cr. R. 146, 49 S.W. 93, is to the same effect. Williams ... v. State, 25 Ind. 150; 2 Bishop Cr. Pro. (3d Ed.) § 700 ... Counsel for appellant insist that the court erred in refusing ... to permit a witness for the defendant to be asked, ... "There was a ... ...
-
Clark v. State
... ... The theft being discovered, the seed was located, and the sheriff got the seed and delivered them to the owner ... We think the description of the property as 60 bushels of cotton seed of the value of $90, of certain ownership, is sufficient. Grissom v. State, 40 Tex.Cr. R. 146, 49 S.W. 93; Walton v. State, 41 Tex.Cr.R. 454, 457, 55 S.W. 566; Baldwin v. State, 76 Tex.Cr.R. 499, 175 S.W. 701; Bell v. State, 84 Tex.Cr.R. 160, 205 S.W. 986; Houston v. State, 98 Tex.Cr.R. 280, 265 S.W. 585 ... We think there is nothing in the ... ...