Siemers v. State
| Decision Date | 31 January 1900 |
| Citation | 55 S.W. 334 |
| Parties | SIEMERS v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from Johnson county court; W. D. McKoy, Judge.
F. Siemers was convicted of theft, and he appeals. Reversed.
Robt. A. John, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Conviction for misdemeanor theft. The evidence discloses the fact that the alleged theft consisted in taking "two barber bottles." These bottles were alleged to be the property of Tom Boyd, and in the possession of Gene Olds. Boyd had occupied a room as a barber shop, which adjoined Olds' saloon. When he surrendered his possession, he left the bottles in said room, under the care and control of Olds. This occurred in the fall of 1898. Subsequently this room was rented to and occupied by a woman for a short time, and later on was rented to defendant. The occupancy of the room by appellant was begun in November or December, 1898. During the month of April, 1899, he sold the bottles to a barber in the same town. The prosecuting witness, during the occupancy by appellant of this room, questioned him in regard to his bottles, and received from him a denial of having disposed of them. It is further in evidence by defendant that when he first occupied the premises the bottles were found among some rubbish in the room; that he cleaned and set them on the shelf in the room. This we believe is a sufficient statement of the evidence.
In order to constitute the offense of theft, under the circumstances, appellant must have intended to fraudulently apply the bottles, or their value, to his own use, at the very time they came into his possession. Unless this is true, the state's case must fail. White's Ann. Pen. Code, art. 861, §§ 1490, 1491, and authorities there cited. The evidence, as detailed, shows but three circumstances which would tend to prove this fact: First, that the bottles were in the room at the time of appellant's occupancy; second, the sale, several months after renting the room; and, third, his denial of the sale. His denial of the sale may be reasonable, because of a want of testimony showing he knew or had reason to believe the bottles were the property of the alleged owner. If he did not know or believe this, he might have well denied getting prosecutor's bottles. Be this as it may, when taken in connection with the other facts, we do not believe this is sufficient to show that he took them originally with intent to appropriate them; and the fact that they remained in his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Blackshare v. State
-
Wilson v. State
...intent did not exist at the time of the taking, its subsequent formation would not constitute larceny. 13 Ark. 168; 40 Am. Rep. 790; 55 S.W. 334; 70 Ark. 204; 69 Ark. 454; 60 Ark. 34 Ark. 334. One who takes under a bona fide claim of right to do so is not guilty of larceny. 71 Ark. 643; 28 ......
-
Rosenthal Dry Goods Co. v. Hillebrandt
... ... 's agent and servant at a high, reckless, and dangerous rate of speed, to wit, in excess of 25 miles an hour in violation of the law of the state of Texas, and also in violation of his duties to plaintiff and to others similarly situated and to the public in general, thereby permitting and ... ...