Honeycut v. State

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: Willson
• Citation: Honeycut v. State, 3 S.W. 716, 23 Tex. App. 71 (Tex. App. 1887)
• Decision Date: 09 February 1887
• Parties: HONEYCUT <I>v.</I> STATE.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL>

3 S.W. 716

HONEYCUT

v. STATE.¹

Court of Appeals of Texas.

February 9, 1887.

Appeal from district court, Bell county.

The opinion discloses the case. The penalty assessed by the verdict was a term of two years in the penitentiary.

Rosborough Bros., for appellant. Asst. Atty. Gen. Burts, for the State.

WILLSON, J.

It is charged in the indictment that the defendant, with intent to defraud, sold and disposed of four bales of cotton, personal and movable property, upon which he had previously executed and delivered to one Staton a valid mortgage in writing, etc. Upon its face the indictment is a good one. On the trial of the case the state offered and read in evidence, over the objections of the defendant, a written mortgage executed by the defendant to said Staton, dated May 11, 1866. This mortgage describes the property mortgaged as a crop of cotton to be raised by defendant during the year 1886. It is not a mortgage upon four or any other number of bales of cotton. It was objected to as evidence because it was not the mortgage described in the indictment. We are of the opinion that the objection should have been sustained. There is a material difference between a crop of cotton and cotton in the bale, with respect to this prosecution. A growing crop of cotton, it is true, may be mortgaged, and a fraudulent disposition of the same, when mortgaged, is now an offense against the law. Gen. Laws 19th Leg. 85. But the indictment does not allege that the mortgage was upon a growing crop of cotton, but upon four bales of cotton. The mortgage read in evidence does not correspond with the allegation in the indictment as to the character of the property upon which...