Rose v. State
| Decision Date | 13 December 1944 |
| Docket Number | No. 22992.,22992. |
| Citation | 184 S.W.2d 617 |
| Parties | ROSE v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from County Court at Law, El Paso County; M. V. Ward, Judge.
A. Rose, alias Anthony Roses, alias B. Bronze, alias George Stevens Scott, alias Charles E. Colsen, was convicted of theft of property over the value of $5 and under the value of $50, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
W. O. Hamilton and George Rodriguez both of El Paso, for appellant.
Ernest S. Goens, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.
The offense is theft of property over the value of $5 and under the value of $50. The punishment assessed is confinement in the county jail for a period of thirty days and a fine of $30.
Appellant's first complaint is that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction. The State's testimony shows that on the 9th day of February, 1944, Mrs. Sukel took a bronze Baby Ben clock to the appellant's place of business to have it cleaned; that appellant looked at the clock and agreed to do the work for $4.50 and requested her to come back on the 23rd of said month, when he would have it ready; that on the day indicated by appellant she returned to his place of business to get her clock, at which time he claimed that he had not had time to clean it. Thereafter, she went back every few days but never did get her clock. At the time she took the clock to him, he said that it was a fine clock and was worth from nine to ten dollars.
In addition to the foregoing evidence, the State introduced several other witnesses by whom it was proved that about the same time they took watches to the appellant for repairs but that they never did get them back, although they went to his place of business repeatedly and asked for them. Appellant objected to this testimony as will hereinafter appear from a discussion of his bills relating thereto.
Appellant did not testify. However, he called his wife as a witness and she testified that she was present when Mrs: Sukel brought a red Baby Ben clock to have it repaired; that it was not a bronze but a red clock with the crystal broken and the winders missing therefrom.
The witness had the clock with her and it was introduced in evidence.
Mrs. Sukel was then recalled and testified that the clock exhibited by appellant's wife to the court and jury was not her clock and was not the one she had left with appellant to be cleaned.
A roomer at Mrs. Sukel's home, who had on several occasions borrowed the clock, testified that the clock introduced in evidence was not Mrs. Sukel's clock.
Appellant contends that the evidence shows that the County Court did not have jurisdiction of the offense charged because Mrs. Sukel testified that she purchased the clock in question in the year 1941 and paid less than $5 for it, but that at the time she took the clock to appellant to have it cleaned, he remarked that it was a fine clock and was worth from nine to ten dollars. The jurisdiction of the court in cases of this nature is controlled by the value of the property at the time of its conversion and not by the purchase price thereof at some time in the past. Suppose she had testified that she paid $60 for the clock and the proof showed that at the time of the conversion it was worth less than $50, or even less than $5. Could appellant successfully contend that the District Court had jurisdiction because the evidence disclosed that the purchase price was $60? We do not think so. However, the County Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the Justice Court in cases of this character where the value of the property taken was less than $5. See Patterson v. State, 122 Tex.Cr.R. 502, 56 S.W.2d 458.
Bills of exception Nos. 1 and 2 relate to the same subject and will be treated and considered together. By these bills appellant complains, first, of the testimony given by Mrs. A. Abbott to the effect that in January she took a clock to the appellant to have it repaired by him. He told her to come back a week later and he would have it ready; that she went back to him repeatedly to get the clock but never did get it back.
Mrs. Florence Hurlburt testified that in the early part of January she took some watches to appellant to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cage v. State
...even though it does not show the commission of other offenses. Stanford v. State, 103 Tex.Cr.R. 182, 280 S.W. 798 and Rose v. State, 148 Tex.Cr.R. 82, 184 S.W.2d 617. The issuance of the checks to Saunders under appellant's directions were similar transactions to that of the issuance of the......
-
Fouke v. State, 50560
...of Texas; Art. 4.07, V.A.C.C.P.; Solon v. State, 5 Tex.App. 301 (1878); Woodward v. State, 5 Tex.App. 296 (1878); Rose v. State, 148 Tex.Cr.R. 82, 184 S.W.2d 617 (1945); Skaggs v. State, 157 Tex.Cr.R. 195, 247 S.W.2d 906 (1952). In a prosecution for resisting arrest the county court has con......
-
Rodriguez v. State, 11-06-00266-CV.
...415 S.W.2d 192 (Tex.Crim.App.1966); Skaggs v. State, 157 Tex.Crim. 195, 247 S.W.2d 906 (Tex.Crim.App.1952); Rose v. State, 148 Tex.Crim. 82, 184 S.W.2d 617 (Tex.Crim.App. 1944) (county court and justice court have concurrent jurisdiction in theft cases where value of property is less than $......
-
Hammonds v. State
...even though it does not show the commission of other offenses. Stanford v. State, 103 Tex.Cr.R. 182, 280 S.W. 798 and Rose v. State, 148 Tex.Cr.R. 82, 184 S.W.2d 617.' See also Fair v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 465 S.W.2d 753, In the instant case, the complaining witness testified on cross-examin......