Stokeley v. State
| Citation | 6 S.W. 538 |
| Parties | STOKELEY v. STATE. |
| Decision Date | 16 December 1887 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Texas |
Appeal from district court, Fannin county; D. H. SCOTT, Judge.
Indictment for larceny. The defendant, A. Stokeley, was convicted for the theft of a mare. The defendant appealed.
Taylor & Galloway and R. B. Semple, for appellant. Asst. Atty. Gen. Davidson, for the State.
This is a conviction for the theft of a mare, the property of F. J. Savage. These are the facts: Savage, the owner of the mare, lived in Delta county, about 22 miles from Honey Grove, in Fannin county. He left his home in Delta county for Honey Grove, and while on his way, and within about a quarter of a mile of the latter place, he dismounted, and turned his mare loose; leaving on her his bridle, saddle, and overshoes. He then met the defendant, who was a stranger to him. Defendant inquired the way to the tie camp, which was across North Sulphur creek. Savage showed him the way, and told him that he had turned his mare loose down the road, and that he, (defendant,) if he was going to the tie camp, might ride the mare to the forks of the road, about 10 miles from where the parties then were, if he would turn her loose when he got to the said forks of the road. To this the defendant agreed, thanking Savage, and started towards the mare, which was about a hundred yards down the road. Appellant got the mare, and while on the road to, but before he reached, the forks, converted her to his own use by swapping her, the saddle, bridle, and overshoes, to one Lee Richards, for an overcoat, worth $9, and $11 in money; telling Richards that his name was Sergeant, and that he had purchased the mare from a man in the Indian Nation.
Do these facts warrant the verdict? To constitute theft, the taking must be wrongful, unless possession of the property was obtained by some false pretext, or when the taking is accompanied with the intent to deprive the owner of the value of the property. Savage gave the defendant permission to take and ride his mare to the forks of the road, then to be turned loose, and defendant agreed to turn her loose at that point. In this, there was no pretext at all, but simply a promise to turn the mare loose at the fork of the road. The proposition was made by the owner of the mare, and accepted by defendant. But there must not only be a pretext, but it must be a false pretext, and a false one when made. It is impossible for this to have been such a pretext as is contemplated by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lee v. State
...at the time of the taking to appropriate it to the use of the person obtaining possession by the fraudulent pretext. Stokely v. State, 24 Tex. App. 510, 6 S. W. 538; Morrison v. State, 17 Tex. App. 37, 50 Am. Rep. 120; Cain v. State, 21 Tex. App. 662, 2 S. W. 888. Thus, under the old articl......
-
Downs v. State
...used, a conviction based upon a subsequent appropriation will not be sustained under an ordinary indictment for theft. Stokely v. State, 24 Tex. App. 509, 6 S. W. 538; Taylor v. State, 25 Tex. App. 101, 7 S. W. 861; Nichols v. State, 28 Tex. App. 107, 12 S. W. 500; Williams v. State, 30 Tex......
- Kalish v. State
-
Segal v. State
...v. State, 20 Tex. App. 152; Morrison v. State, 17 Tex. App. 34, 50 Am. Rep. 120; Hornbeck v. State, 10 Tex. App. 408; Stokely v. State, 24 Tex. App. 509, 6 S. W. 538; Rumbo v. State, 28 Tex. App. 32, 11 S. W. 680, were reversed because the evidence was insufficient. The remarks contained in......