Wilson v. State
| Decision Date | 19 October 1904 |
| Parties | WILSON v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, McLennan County; Sam R. Scott, Judge.
Joe Wilson appeals from a conviction. Affirmed.
Howard Martin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was convicted of embezzlement, and his punishment assessed at two years' confinement in the penitentiary.
The indictment is in two counts, charging appellant with embezzlement of a horse alleged to have come into his possession as bailee of one B. F. Carter. The indictment appears to have been drawn under article 938, Pen. Code 1895. Under the facts of this case, the indictment properly charged embezzlement, instead of theft.
The facts, briefly stated, show that appellant was the servant and employé of Carter, and, as such, was sent by him to the village of Battle, McLennan county, to buy and bring home some medicine for prosecutor, and was intrusted by prosecutor with the mare to ride for said purpose. The appropriation of the animal under such circumstances would not have constituted theft, under the general statute; appellant being the mere servant of Carter. Bailey v. State, 18 Tex. App. 426; Graves v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 42 S. W. 300. Although the act may have constituted theft of property acquired by bailment under article 877, Pen. Code 1895, that affords no reason why it would not also constitute embezzlement under the general statute. In Livingston v. State, 38 Tex. Cr. R. 535, 43 S. W. 1008, the facts were somewhat different from those here, showing only a bare custody of the barber shop in the absence of the employer; and it was there held that they did not constitute appellant the possessor of the goods in such manner as that he could not be guilty of committing a theft thereof. In the case at bar there is no question as to the possession of the mare by appellant. While this was a mere gratuity, the mare being furnished by the master to the servant in his employment as such, it was none the less a bailment. Malz v. State, 36 Tex. Cr. R. 447, 34 S. W. 267, 37 S. W. 748. Did appellant embezzle said mare? It is contended that his acts do not evidence an actual appropriation or conversion, inasmuch as there was no consummated sale of the mare by appellant. It may be conceded that the sale of the mare was not perfected, yet the circumstances show a sufficient appropriation to constitute a conversion. Steadham v. State, 40 Tex. Cr. R. 43, 48 S. W. 177. It is shown that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lee v. State
...exclusive benefit of the bailor. Johnson v. State, 71 Tex. Cr. R. 206, 159 S. W. 849; Reed v. State, 16 Tex. App. 590; Wilson v. State, 47 Tex. Cr. R. 160, 82 S. W. 651. In swindling, it was held, under article 1421, that it must have been the intention of the parties that the title pass, a......
-
Great Nat. Lloyds v. Hall, 15484
...442, 93 S.W. 734; Hamer v. State, 60 Tex.Cr.R. 341, 131 S.W. 813; Nesbitt v. State, 65 Tex.Cr.R. 349, 144 S.W. 944; Wilson v. State, 47 Tex.Cr.R. 159, 82 S.W. 651; York v. State, 140 Tex.Cr. R. 199, 143 S.W.2d 770; Collins v. State, 92 Tex.Cr.R. 388, 244 S.W. 153; Jackson v. State, 44 Tex.C......
-
Segal v. State
...statute defining embezzlement); Simco v. State, 8 Tex. App. 406; Zysman v. State, 42 Tex. Cr. R. 432, 60 S. W. 669; Wilson v. State, 47 Tex. Cr. R. 159, 82 S. W. 651. Other illustrations are to be found in 17 Ruling Case Law, pp. 13 to 19, inclusive. When the owner of property voluntarily p......
-
Landis v. State
...and not bailee theft. Johnson v. State, 71 Tex. Cr. R. 207, 159 S. W. 849; Reed v. State, 16 Tex. App. 590; Wilson v. State, 47 Tex. Cr. R. 160, 82 S. W. 651. But, if the evidence should also be held sufficient to show bailee theft, this court holds: "Although an act may have constituted th......