Conoly v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas
Appeal from the District Court of Limestone. Tried below before the Hon. D. M. Prendergast. The indictment charged that, on February 3, 1877, with force and arms, in the county of Limestone and state of Texas, the accused, “ then and there, into the store-house there situated of Samuel Richardson, which said storehouse the said Samuel Richardson then and there occupied and used, in which said store-house the said Samuel Richardson was then and there doing the business of a…
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of Limestone. Tried below before the Hon. D. M. Prendergast. The indictment charged that, on February 3, 1877, with force and arms, in the county of Limestone and state of Texas, the accused, “ then and there, into the store-house there situated of Samuel Richardson, which said storehouse the said Samuel Richardson then and there occupied and used, in which said store-house the said Samuel Richardson was then and there doing the business of a retail merchant, and was then and there keeping groceries, liquors, and merchandise in said house, unlawfully, willfully,…
1Opinion of the CourtWhite, J.
The act of August 21, 1876 (Acts Fifteenth Legislature, 231), was intended to, and did, amend solely Article 724 of the Penal Code, which partly defines burglary as known to our law. The amendment consisted in the addition of the words “ or the crime of theft” to-said Article. Pasc. Dig., Art. 2359. No change was made, or intended to be made, in Article 725 of the Penal Code, and that Article still remains in full force, and reads as follows : “He is also guilty of burglary who, with intent to commit a felony, by breaking enters a house in the daytime.”
Under our law as it now is, and in fact…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Bishop v. StateTexas Supreme Court · 1875
- State v. RobertsonTexas Supreme Court · 1869