Ledbetter v. State
| Decision Date | 16 March 1895 |
| Citation | 29 S.W. 1084 |
| Parties | LEDBETTER v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from district court, McCulloch county; J. O. Woodward, Judge.
Bob Ledbetter was convicted of the theft of a cow, and appeals. Reversed.
Guion & Truley, for appellant. Mann Trice, for the State.
Conviction for theft of a cow. The fact that the property belonged to a company has nothing to do with this case. The indictment alleged that the property belonged to W. M. Roberts. The proof shows that he was in exclusive possession, control, and management of the property. This sustains the allegation that Roberts was the owner of the property. We deem it unnecessary to cite authorities on this proposition. The statute settles it. If the cow in question had the J O brand on it, then the circumstances in this case show that appellant stole the animal; if it did not, there was no theft of Roberts' cow. Bearing directly upon this issue, the defendant relied, to support the testimony of Blackwell, upon the testimony of one M. S. Byrd, whose testimony in substance is as follows: That he was present at Brownwood when appellant bought certain cattle from one Kuykendall; that he witnessed the bill of sale; that three of these cattle were branded in J — brand; that he had known the J — cows from calves, (two red ones and one pied one); that, in making the —, it would sometimes be curved. Witness, being shown the hide taken from the alleged stolen cow, said: Blackwell swears that the cattle bought by defendant from Kuykendall at Brownwood, mentioned by Byrd, were delivered to defendant in his presence, and knows that one of the cows was killed, and the carcass and hide delivered to F. M. Jones, from whom W. M. Roberts procured the hide. Roberts swears that his hide was branded with a J on the side, and an O upon the leg or thigh; and it was upon the testimony of Roberts and the sheriff, that the hide obtained from Jones bore these brands, that this conviction was obtained.
When Byrd was upon the stand, the state asked him the question, or at least upon cross-examination the state proved by him that he "did not at any time tell John Lewis...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Starr
... ... N.E. 658; Griffith v. State, 72 N.E. 563; State ... v. Patton, 41 A. 193; Carl v. State, 28 So ... 505; Adkins v. State, 41 S.E. 987; Taylor v ... State, 75 S.W. 35; Cook v. State, 97 S.W. 683; ... Barnes v. People, 18 Ill. 52; State v ... Donovan, 121 Mo. 496; Ledbetter v. State, 29 ... S.W. 1084; 1 Greenleaf on Ev. (15 Ed.), sec. 34; State v ... Hobgood, 15 So. 406; Weeks v. Etter, 81 Mo ... 375; Comm. Co. v. Railroad, 87 Mo.App. 330; ... Miller v. Marks, 20 Mo.App. 369. (6) In an ... indictment for obtaining money under false pretenses it is ... ...
-
Northcutt v. State
...witness Shelly? Certainly not. The party who is the actual custodian of the property is the party in possession. See [Ledbetter v. State] 29 S. W. 1084; [Bailey v. State] 20 Tex. App. 68; [Briggs v. State] 20 Tex. App. 106; [Littleton v. State] 20 Tex. App. 168; [Bailey v. State] 18 Tex. Ap......
-
Ledbetter v. State
...of the theft of a cow, and his punishment assessed at two years in the penitentiary. This case was before us at the Dallas term, 1895 (29 S. W. 1084), and the judgment was reversed because of the manner in which a witness was impeached, the predicate for the impeachment not having been firs......