Stedham v. State
| Decision Date | 14 December 1898 |
| Parties | STEDHAM v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from district court, El Paso county; A. M. Walthall, Judge.
Felix Stedham was convicted of theft, and appeals. Affirmed.
C. N. Buckler and Millard Patterson, for appellant. Mann Trice, for the State.
Appellant was convicted of theft by conversion of a hack and harness, alleged to be worth $140, and given five years in the penitentiary; hence this appeal.
The indictment contains two counts,—the first for theft by conversion of the alleged stolen property, and the second for theft charged in the ordinary form. The court submitted only the first count. The evidence discloses that appellant hired from Mendenhall, the alleged owner and keeper of a stock yard in the city of El Paso, the hack and harness described, for one day, paying the sum of one dollar for same. He failed to return the hack at the expiration of the contract, and two or three days thereafter the owner began hunting for the defendant and his property, and sent out circulars describing said hack and harness and the defendant. The hiring occurred on the 30th of April, 1897, and on the 25th day of the following October appellant sold the hack and harness in Midland county. The defendant seems to have gone from El Paso to Eddy, N. M. He was heard of in El Paso county, 10 days after procuring the hack, going in that direction, and about 40 miles from the city of El Paso, in the mountains. The evidence further shows that, in order to get out of El Paso county in the direction indicated, or to reach Midland county, appellant would have to travel in El Paso county 175 miles; and that it would take six or seven days, going in either direction, for appellant to travel said 175 miles. The owner was unable to ascertain the whereabouts of appellant until he heard of him in New Mexico, but defendant in the meantime had left there, returning into Texas, and sold the property in Midland county. He claimed the property as his own, and sold it as above stated, giving a bill of sale to the purchaser. The defendant offered no evidence.
The first contention is that the county of El Paso had no jurisdiction, in that there was no actual conversion shown in said El Paso county, but the same occurred in Midland county. We understand the rules with reference to the question of conversion are the same in this character of case as in that of embezzlement, and that it can be proved in the same manner as in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pye v. State
...proof of venue be wholly circumstantial, the court is not required to charge on circumstantial evidence as to venue. Steadham v. State, 40 Tex. Cr. R. 43, 48 S. W. 177. And, where from the evidence the jury may reasonably conclude that the offense was committed in the county alleged, this c......
-
Allen v. State
...515, 135 S. W. 532; Brown v. State, 71 Tex. Cr. R. 353, 162 S. W. 339. Venue may be proved by circumstantial evidence (Steadham v. State, 40 Tex. Cr. R. 43, 48 S. W. 177; Pye v. State, 71 Tex. Cr. R. 94, 154 S. W. 222), and its proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not required (Johnson v. Sta......
-
Stocks v. State, 22608.
...to be shown. See Hendricks v. State, 122 Tex.Cr.R. 429, 55 S.W.2d 839. I am of the opinion the following holding in Steadham v. State, 40 Tex.Cr.R. 43, 48 S.W. 177, 178, correctly states the rule: "It is also insisted that the court should have charged the law applicable to a case of circum......
-
Curtis v. State, 30319
...instruct the jury on the issue of venue. A charge on circumstantial evidence is inapplicable on the question of venue. Steadham v. State, 40 Tex.Cr.R. 43, 48 S.W. 177, and Reynolds v. State, 71 Tex.Cr.R. 454, 160 S.W. 362. Both contentions are We find no error in the court's refusal to char......