Hoovel v. State

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.

LATTIMORE, Judge.

—Appellant urges that the proof shows that Lawrence Holcomb, the owner of the alleged stolen property, intended to part with both title and possession of his stock certificates, (the alleged stolen property), and hence, the case, if anything, would be swindling and not theft. In this connection he also insists that the court below erroneously sustained the state’s objection to his question to Holcomb, set out in his bill of exceptions No. 1, as to what his intention was when he parted with said certificates. We think the matter covered by this question…