Jones v. State
| Decision Date | 12 June 1889 |
| Citation | 11 S.W. 830 |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
| Parties | JONES <I>v.</I> STATE. |
Appeal from district court, Llano county; A. W. MOURSUND, Judge.
William Jones appeals from a conviction of the theft of a cow.
Miller & Lauderdale, for appellant. Asst. Atty. Gen. Davidson, for the State.
This conviction is for the theft a cow, and must be set aside because of a fundamental error in the charge of the court. The indictment alleges ownership of the cow in two persons jointly, to-wit, Frank Paxton and C. C. McCluer, and the jury are instructed on the charge as follows: "If from the evidence adduced in this case you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that * * * defendant unlawfully took one cow, * * * the property of Frank Paxton and C. C. McCluer, without the consent of said Paxton and said McCluer, or of either of them," etc. The words "or of either of them" should have been omitted, and the charge as to consent should have been "without the consent of Frank Paxton and without the consent of C. C. McCluer." Woods' Case, 26 Tex. App. 490, 10 S. W. Rep. 108.
Other questions presented in the record are not considered, as they are not likely to arise on another trial. We will remark, however, that, as presented in the statement of facts, the evidence does not, in our opinion, warrant the conviction, but upon another trial sufficient proof of defendant's guilt may be adduced. The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davis v. State
...question has been adjudicated in a number of cases. Directly in point see Woods v. State, 26 Tex. App. 490, 10 S. W. 108; Jones v. State, 28 Tex. App. 42, 11 S. W. 830. Those cases support appellant's The court gave a charge on circumstantial evidence, but did not charge upon the theory of ......
- Kilgore v. State
-
Towls v. State
...the goods to a place of safety, and that everybody had the implied consent of the owners to do this. In the case of Jones v. State, 28 Tex. App. 42, 11 S. W. 830, a charge like the one given in this case was held reversible error. The charge asked by the defendant would have cured the error......