State v. Stephens
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from Smith. The indictment charged “ that Samuel Stephens, late of the county of Smith, on the thirteenth day of September, A. D. 1868, did, in the said county of Smith, fraudulently take from the possession of William H. Pate one silver watch of the value of two dollars and fifty cents, the said watch being then and there deposited with the said William IT.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Smith. The indictment charged “ that Samuel Stephens, late of the county of Smith, on the thirteenth day of September, A. D. 1868, did, in the said county of Smith, fraudulently take from the possession of William H. Pate one silver watch of the value of two dollars and fifty cents, the said watch being then and there deposited with the said William IT. Pate for repairs, and was then and there held for security for the repairs that had then and there been made on said watch, said watch being then and there the corporeal personal property of the said Samuel Stephens. Said watch was…
1Opinion of the CourtLindsay, J.
We do not perceive any good and valid reason for sustaining the motion to quash the indictment in this ease. It is made apparent that it contains the distinct allegation of the theft of his own property by the defendant. It was such a “fraudulent taking” of his own property, from the rightful possession of'another, as was contemplated by the fourth subdivision of Art. 2388, Paschal’s Digest. The charge is, that one William IT. Pate held possession of, by virtue of his lien for repairs, a watch, the property of the defendant; and that the defendant fraudulently took it, without the consent of…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Hudiburg Chevrolet, Inc. v. Globe Indemnity Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1965
- State v. ParkerUtah Supreme Court · 1943
- Worthington v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1971
- State v. EtapeSupreme Court of Kansas · 1985