Willis v. State
| Decision Date | 11 April 1894 |
| Citation | 25 S.W. 1119 |
| Parties | WILLIS v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from district court, Falls county; S. R. Scott, Judge.
Rovine Willis was convicted of burglary, and appeals. Affirmed.
Rice & Bartlett, for appellant. R. L. Henry, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was convicted of burglary, and sentenced to three years in the state reformatory, from which he appeals.
1. The court did not err in charging the jury, in this case, that the structure burglarized was a house. The undisputed testimony shows the structure to come fully within the term "house," as defined in article 709 of the Penal Code. It is described as a fruit stand built somewhat in the shape of a piano box, about eight feet high, with shelves and counters; and the proprietor could, in making sales, stand inside or out of the structure, as he desired. It was unnecessary to submit a question to the jury, about which there could be no dispute.
2. Nor did the court err in refusing the charge asked by appellant to the effect that the state must prove the want of consent of Mrs. Coute and her daughter. The evidence shows that James Vedine managed the business in the absence of G. Coute, the owner, and the indictment charged the house to be occupied by the said Vedine. The fact that his mother and sister assisted in the sales, and carrying on the business, was immaterial, so far as the indictment was concerned. Code Civ. Proc. art. 426; Wilson's Cr. St. § 1258. If appellant had the consent of Coute's wife or daughter, it was defensive matter to be shown on trial. The judgment is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Marks
...S.W. 932; State v. Terrell, 55 Utah 314, 25 A. L. R. 497, 186 P. 108; James v. State, 63 Tex. Crim. 559, 140 S.W. 1086; Willis v. State, 33 Tex. Crim. 168, 25 S.W. 1119; People v. Franco, 79 Cal.App. 682, 250 P. Appellant insists that there is a material variance between the allegations of ......
-
Gunter v. State
... ... 6 ... Cyc. pp. 191, 192. Under similar statutes in other States ... chicken houses are held to be within the statutes ... People v. Stickman, 34 Cal. 242; ... Gillock v. People, 171 Ill. 307, 49 N.E ... 712; Williams v. State, 105 Ga. 814, 32 ... S.E. 129; Willis v. State, 33 Tex.Crim ... 168, 25 S.W. 1119 ... The ... indictment sufficiently charges the crime of burglary, but ... the evidence does not sustain that charge. The prosecuting ... witness, Maledon, testified that he missed 33 of his ... chickens, and found where they had ... ...
-
Gunter v. State
...171 Ill. 307, 49 N. E. 712; Williams v. State, 105 Ga. 814, 32 S. E. 129, 70 Am. St. Rep. 82; Willis v. State, 33 Tex. Cr. R. 168, 25 S. W. 1119. The indictment sufficiently charges the crime of burglary, but the evidence does not sustain that charge. The prosecuting witness, Maledon, testi......
-
Davis v. State
...not error for the court to tell the jury that the cotton pen was a house within the meaning of our burglary statute (Willis v. State, 33 Tex. Cr. R. 168, 25 S. W. 1119), nor do we agree with the objection that such structure was not a house. It was built of posts or logs about 4 feet high o......