Jones v. State
| Decision Date | 22 January 1887 |
| Citation | 3 S.W. 478 |
| Parties | JONES v. STATE.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL> |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
The evidence disclosed conclusively that when he deposited the cotton at the gin to have it ginned and baled, the defendant deliberately threw a quantity of sand in it. The ginner testified that, while the process of ginning would remove much of the sand, a large percentage of it would remain in the bale, and to that extent increase its weight. It was further shown that defendant afterwards admitted that he put the sand in the cotton, remarking that as P., the man to whom it was to be sold, charged him three prices for goods, he thought it right to "get even with him." It was proved for the defense that, in purchasing cotton, P. would pay no more for clean than for dirty cotton.
No appearance for appellant. Asst. Atty. Gen. Burts, for the State.
This conviction is under article 470 of the Penal Code. It is charged in the indictment that the defendant, with intent to defraud, put into a bale containing cotton, a commodity usually sold by weight, sand and dirt, mixed with the said cotton, the same being an article of less value than the said cotton, with which the said bale was apparently packed. It is shown very conclusively by the evidence that defendant did put sand into said cotton, but he did so while the cotton was in the seed, before it had been ginned; and it is also sufficiently shown by the evidence that in doing the act his intention was to increase the weight of the cotton, and thereby defraud the purchaser of said cotton.
In his charge to the jury the trial judge, among other instructions, gave the following: "It matters not at what time the sand or dirt was put into the cotton, provided it was done by the defendant, and so done for the purpose and with the intent to defraud, and in a manner calculated to accomplish such purpose at the time." We believe this to be a correct statement of the law. It is not necessary, to constitute the offense, that the defendant should have been present at the time of packing and baling the cotton, and at that very time should have put the sand into the bale. The sand was mingled with the cotton by him, and went into the bale by his act as effectually as if he had put it into the bale when the cotton was packed. By putting the sand into the seed cotton, he put it into the bale of cotton. Such we hold to be the meaning of the law. But w...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Rodriguez.
...another distinct crime, unless he expressly limits the application of the statute to the charge in the indictment. See Jones v. State, 22 Tex. App. 680, 3 S. W. 478; Simons v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 34 S. W. 619; Hargrave v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 30 S. W. 444. Examination of these cases disc......
-
Marlow v. State
...added.) Accord, Richardson v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 390 S.W.2d 773; Supina v. State, 115 Tex.Cr.R. 56, 27 S.W.2d 198; Jones v. State, 22 Tex.App. 680, 3 S.W. 478; Jernigan v. State, 10 Tex.App. 546; Webb v. State, 8 Tex.App. 115; Baker v. State, 6 Tex.App. 344. See also Hawley v. State, 158 T......
-
Tew v. State
...(1910); Richardson v. State, 390 S.W.2d 773 (Tex.Cr.App.1965); Supina v. State, 115 Tex.Cr.R. 56, 27 S.W.2d 198 (1930); Jones v. State, 22 Tex.App. 680, 3 S.W. 478 (1887); Jernigan v. State, 10 Tex.App. 546 (1881); Webb v. State, 8 Tex.App. 115 (1880); Baker v. State, 6 Tex.App. 344 (1879);......
-
Briscoe v. State
...properly refused. It is the duty of the court to give charges as asked, with or without modification, or to refuse them. Jones v. State, 22 Tex. App. 680, 3 S. W. 478; Sparks v. State, 23 Tex. App. 447, 5 S. W. We further observe that no witness testified that said knife was a deadly weapon......