Taylor v. State
| Decision Date | 04 March 1903 |
| Citation | 75 S.W. 35 |
| Parties | TAYLOR v. STATE.<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL> |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Johnson County; W. Poindexter, Judge.
Rather Taylor was convicted of cattle theft, and he appeals. Affirmed.
D. W. Odell, F. E. Johnson, and S. P. Willson, for appellant. Mason Cleveland, Co. Atty., and Howard Martin, Asst. Atty. Gen. for the State.
Appellant was convicted of cattle theft, and his punishment assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for a term of two years.
The evidence discloses that two—perhaps three—parties, on the night of the 29th of August, 1901, took five head of cattle from what is called the "Francis Pasture," several miles southwest of the town of Cleburne. Appellant and two other parties were suspected of the crime. The citizens in the immediate neighborhood made pursuit, passing through Cleburne, where they enlisted a couple of officers, going north of the town some ten miles, to a camp where a small herd of cattle was being held, reaching that point about sunrise. Appellant had been assisting the party in charge of this herd of cattle in gathering and driving them to the point where they were in camp; had left them the night before, and returned to the neighborhood where the five head of cattle were taken. Upon reaching the camp, the officers and the crowd took appellant and Vindex Haynes in charge. En route from the cattle camp to Cleburne, some four or five miles north of Cleburne, appellant suddenly stopped his horse, and said to those in charge of him: " This statement was made to the officers who had him in charge. In this crowd, besides the officers, was Officer Pollard's brother, Onan Pollard, Haynes, Fergurson, and Stephens. This officer further testified: Fergurson, who is here spoken of, was the alleged owner of the cattle; and the evidence shows that subsequent to the transaction, and before the trial, Fergurson died. The testimony is not as clear as it might possibly be as to whether there were two or three parties in charge of the alleged stolen cattle. This fact is mentioned on account of the statement of appellant that the connection of himself and Haynes with the cattle was by reason of the fact that a certain party had hired them.
Appellant contends the evidence raises the issue of voluntary return of stolen property, and cites several cases in support thereof. We have given the testimony in regard to this supposed phase of the record close scrutiny. We do not believe the facts suggested this issue. Appellant, if he took the cattle, had driven them 12 or 13 miles, and had secreted them, and, being taken in charge by the officers, so far as the record is concerned, failed to disclose his connection with them until they had traveled 4, 5, or 6 miles in the direction of the county jail in charge of the officers, and after having passed where the cattle were, leaving them several miles in the rear and to one side of the road. Under the rule laid down in Elkins' Case, 35 Tex. Cr. R. 206, 32 S. W. 1046, this evidence does not show a voluntary return. While the facts here do not show, at the time of his arrest, that he was in possession of the property, it clearly shows his detection, that he had had possession of the property, and had secreted it; and this, in legal contemplation, was still in his possession. He had not abandoned the possession, but had secreted the property, and it was only when he was en route to the county site in charge of the officers that he determined to inform them and owners of the cattle as to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Starr
... ... also with the title to the money. The court should have ... submitted to the jury the question of Robinson's ... intention as to passing the title as well as possession ... Loomis v. People, 67 N.Y. 322; Smith v ... People, 53 N.Y. 111; Kellog v. State, 26 Oh ... St. 15; Taylor v. State, 32 Tex. Crim. 110; ... Wilson v. State, 1 Porter (Ala.), 118. (7) ... Instruction 2 is also erroneous in that it fails to require ... the jury to find the fraudulent purpose for which defendant ... made the alleged false pretenses. State v. Keyes, ... 196 Mo. 136. (8) ... ...
-
State v. Dixson
... ... Such ... want of consent may generally be proven by circumstantial ... evidence (Nixon v. State, supra; State v. Wong ... Quong, 27 Wash. 93, 67 P. 355; 8 Enc. Ev. 134), and ... always when the owner or custodian is dead (Hines v. United ... States, supra; Devore v. State, supra; Taylor v. State ... (Tex. Cr. App.) 75 S.W. 35; Jackson v. State, ... 49 Tex. Cr. App. 215, 91 S.W. 788; Jordan v. State, ... 51 Tex. Cr. App. 646, 104 S.W. 900). We think there is ample ... evidence to show nonconsent of Jacobs. Surely he would not ... have made a list of the missing articles ... ...
-
Elliott v. State
...cannot of their own volition change owners. Alford v. State, 31 Tex. Cr. R. 299, 20 S. W. 553; Denton v. State, 69 S. W. 142; Taylor v. State, 75 S. W. 35. That the owner is out of the state when the property is stolen will not change the possession from him, if he did not leave said proper......
-
Dalton v. State
...went with the officers and produced it. Was this a voluntary return? This exact question came before this court in Taylor v. State, 75 S. W. 35, 536, 8 Tex. Ct. Rep. 102, and it was there held that this was not a voluntary return. We adhere to that holding. Therefore the court did not err i......