Hart v. State

*655ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

In his motion for rehearing appellant insists that the evidence exhibits a variance in that it is alleged in the indictment that the stolen animal was taken from the possession of its owner Dillingham, whereas it is claimed that the evidence shows it was taken from Fred Cox. Appellant cites us to Tinney v. State, 5 S. W. 831, and Williams v. State, 51 S. W. 904, as supporting his contention. We think the facts are such that the cases mentioned are not controlling. Dillingham had placed his cow in a pasture controlled by the Rio Bravo Oil Co.…