Muldrew v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas
Appeal from the District Court of Milam. Tried below before the Hon. W. E. Collard. The conviction in this case was for the theft of a heifer, and the punishment awarded was three years in the penitentiary. This same appellant was convicted in two other cases for similar offenses and upon similar indictments. The judgments were reversed on appeal, and the prosecutions dismissed for the reasons assigned in the present case.
1Opinion of the CourtHurt, J.
The indictment omits to charge that the-taking was fraudulent, but alleges the intent to have been “with the fraudulent intent to appropriate the same to the use and benefit of him, the said Joseph Muldrew.”
Theft under our Code is the fraudulent taking of property, etc. The adjective should be applied to and made to describe the taking. We are aware that in Musquez v. State, 41 Texas, 226, Gould, J., held that an indictment which charged that the defendant did feloniously steal was equivalent to a charge that the defendant fraudulently took the property. The reason given in that case *618for this…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Musquez v. StateTexas Supreme Court · 1874
- State v. ComfortSupreme Court of Missouri · 1838
- State v. HarrisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1864