Ridgeway v. State
| Decision Date | 01 January 1874 |
| Citation | 41 Tex. 231 |
| Parties | LOUIS RIDGEWAY v. THE STATE. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from Bexar. Tried below before the Hon. Geo. H. Noonan.
George Clark, Attorney General, for the State.
The indictment in this case for theft is defective, in omitting entirely a part of the definition of the offense, to wit, “with intent to deprive the owner of the value of the same.”
This was made the ground of a motion in arrest of judgment, which was overruled by the court.
In this ruling the court erred, for which the judgment must be reversed. (The State v. Daugherty, 30 Tex., 360; The State v. Huston, 12 Tex., 245;Marshall v. The State, 31 Tex., 474.)
It is proper to remark also that the description of the property alleged to be stolen was hardly sufficient. It was described as “one hundred and sixty-two dollars in the current coin of the country.” So far as may be practicable, the kind and denomination of the coin should have been described, so as to identify it reasonably, or, if it was in rolls, with something written thereon, or anything else of like kind, might have served to identify the money.
The rule is, that the property must be described with reasonable certainty, whenever it is practicable to do so; and, therefore, when it can be done, the species of coin must be specified, as “fifty pieces of the current coin of the United States, commonly called half dollars.” When a particular description cannot be given, it should be stated in the indictment, after giving such as the grand jurors can certainly make of the property. (
Judgment reversed and remanded.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Noland
...of his property is a necessary and essential element of the offense of embezzlement, and should be charged in the indictment. Ridgeway v. State, 41 Tex. 231; State McCollum, 44 Mo. 343; 4 American & English Encyclopedia of Law, 746; Huntsman v. State, 12 Tex.App. 619; dissenting opinion of ......
-
State v. Silva
...392; State v. Pratt, 98 Mo. 482; State v. Jennings, 98 Mo. 495; State v. Simpson, 73 N.C. 269; State v. McCollum, 44 Mo. 343; Ridgeway v. State, 41 Tex. 231; 4 Am. & Encyclopedia of Law, 746; Huntsman v. State, 12 Tex.App. 619. R. F. Walker, attorney general, Morton Jourdan, assistant attor......
-
State v. Williams
...appearing from the evidence to be the fact. Chisholm v. State, 45 Ala. 66; State v. Fisher, 106 Iowa, 658, 77 N. W. 456;Ridgeway v. State, 41 Tex. 231. Some question is made as to rulings in the admission of testimony of witnesses as to the persons in whose company defendant was seen on the......
-
State v. Segermond
...coin of the United States, or other country, the indictment was held to be defective for want of sufficient description. In Ridgeway v. The State, 41 Tex. 231, 232, it was "The rule is that the property must be described with reasonable certainty, whenever practicable to do so; and therefor......