Murio v. State

• Citation: 20 S.W. 356
• Parties: MURIO v. STATE.
• Decision Date: 29 October 1892
• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

20 S.W. 356

MURIO v. STATE.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

October 29, 1892.

Appeal from district court, Travis county; JAMES H. ROBERTSON, Judge.

Andrew Murio was convicted of receiving stolen property of the value of $20, and sentenced to two years in the penitentiary, from which he appeals. Affirmed.

A. S. Houston, for appellant. R. L. Henry, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

SIMKINS, J.

On the night of March 30, 1892, a freight car, loaded with coffee and other products, on the International & Great Northern Railroad, at Austin, was broken open, and about 416 pounds of coffee taken therefrom. On the morning of April 1st a portion of this coffee (164 pounds) was found in defendant's house spread on the floor, and covering thrown over it to resemble a bed, and in the corner was a box marked, "A. Frank & Co., San Antonio." When the coffee was found, defendant hung his head, and said nothing, but that he could not speak English nor could the sheriff speak Spanish. Three witnesses (defendant's wife being one) proved that one Nestoro was indebted to defendant, and told him he had coffee which he had taken on a debt, and he wanted defendant to sell some of it on commission, and pay himself, and he delivered the coffee to him for that purpose; that defendant is a Mexican, and cannot speak English. J. Reed, a wood dealer in Austin, testified to defendant's honesty and industry. The only rebutting testimony was the witness Nestoro, who denied giving the coffee to defendant, but it was admitted that he was under indictment for the theft of the same goods. There is no question that the coffee found in defendant's possession had been stolen from the freight car on the International & Great Northern Railroad. It was sufficiently identified. The only question that demands consideration is the sufficiency of the testimony to sustain the conviction. Before he received the coffee, defendant was informed by Nestoro that he (Nestoro) had taken the coffee in payment for a debt. Under the statute the party receiving the stolen property must know it was stolen, (Pen. Code, art. 743; Wilson's Case, 12 Tex. App. 488,) and guilty knowledge and the receiving of the stolen goods must concur, (Arcia v. State, 26 Tex. App. 205, 9 S. W. Rep. 685; Nourse's Case, 2 Tex. App. 304.) But guilty knowledge can be implied if defendant received the goods under circumstances sufficient to satisfy a man of ordinary intelligence and caution that the goods were stolen. Desty, ...