Marshall v. State
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from Collin. The case was tried before Hon. Hardin Hart, one of the district judges. The appellant was tried and convicted upon a charge of theft of a mule, the property of Andrew Wetsel. The indictment was in the usual form, charging the taking to have been without the consent of the owner, &c.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Collin. The case was tried before Hon. Hardin Hart, one of the district judges. The appellant was tried and convicted upon a charge of theft of a mule, the property of Andrew Wetsel. The indictment was in the usual form, charging the taking to have been without the consent of the owner, &c. The state having proved by the witness Wetsel that possession of the mule was obtained with his consent, the defendant in the court below objected to the introduction of any testimony to show that possession was obtained by fraudulent or false pretexts, which objection was overruled and a bill…
1Opinion of the CourtCaldwell, J.
—This is an indictment for theft, evidently founded upon the following section of the statute:
“ The taking must be wrongful, so that if the property came into the possession of the person accused of theft by lawful means the subsequent appropriation of it is not theft; but if the taking, though originally lawful, was obtained by any false pretext, or with an intent to deprive the owner of the value thereof, and appropriate the property to the use and benefit of the person taking, and the same is so appropriated, the offense of theft is complete.” (Paschal’s Dig., Art. 2385.)
The indictment is…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Williams v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1882
- Coblentz v. StateOhio Supreme Court · 1911
- Davidson v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1882
- Davison v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1882
- Jones v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1880
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.