Moseley v. State

• Decision Date: 18 November 1896
• Citation: 37 S.W. 736
• Parties: MOSELEY v. STATE.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL>
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

37 S.W. 736

MOSELEY v. STATE.¹

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

November 18, 1896.

Appeal from district court, McLennan county; Samuel R. Scott, Judge.

Will Moseley was convicted for receiving stolen property, and appeals. Affirmed.

Cunningham & Cunningham, for appellant. Mann Trice, for the State.

DAVIDSON, J.

Conviction for receiving a stolen horse, knowing the same to have been stolen, the property of W. E. Roberts.

1. The indictment alleges that Sam Adams and Will Moseley received the property from Sam Stanfield. Under this allegation the state must prove, in order to sustain the conviction, that appellant received the property from Sam Stanfield. Proof that he received it from some other person would not be sufficient to sustain the indictment. The court submitted to the jury all of the issues presented by the evidence fully and very clearly. The only question for us to decide is whether the testimony sustains the allegation that appellant, alone or acting with Adams, received the horse from Sam Stanfield. Appellant's theory was that he purchased the horse from Sonny Moseley. This defense was fully submitted to the jury in the main charge of the court. The record shows that Sam Stanfield stole the horse at Mt. Calm, and carried it to Polk Moseley's place in McLennan county. This theft was committed at night, and the horse was carried there the same night. The next morning Sonny Moseley came to Polk Moseley's, reaching there about the time or just after the family had gotten up. Stanfield, Will Moseley, Sam Adams, and Sonny Moseley all went to the lot where the horse was, and had a long private conversation among themselves. They talked in low and earnest tones. The subject of the conversation was the Roberts horse, the one that Stanfield had stolen and brought there during the previous night. After this conversation was finished, Sam Stanfield got on a brown horse, and left, going in the direction of his home, near Mt. Calm, leaving the stolen property at Polk Moseley's. The defendant left that afternoon, on a bay or brown horse, going to Pryor Stripling's. About two or three days later, Sonny Moseley and Sam Adams carried the stolen horse to Doc Stone's, in the upper part of Falls county. Upon their arrival at Doc Stone's, they left the horse in Stone's lot, and went off seven or eight miles, to where defendant was, and returned with him to Doc Stone's. After the three arrived at the residence of said Stone, the defendant remained a short time, and left the horse he had ridden there, and rode away on the stolen horse. Shortly afterwards the defendant carried him into Lampasas county and sold him. The proof shows that appellant knew the horse well, and knew that it was the property of Roberts. He evidently knew the property was stolen, and knew this when he saw the horse at Polk Moseley's. Now, the question is whether these facts support...