Giles v. State

The appellant was indicted for selling property upon which there was a lien, without the consent of the holder of the lien and without discharging the debt made immediately on disposing of the property.

On the trial, a contract between the appellant' and the seller of the mules was introduced in evidence containing the terms of the agreement. This contract seems to have been lost — at least, it has not been made a part of the record. The appellant testified that he had the seller’s authority to trade the property upon which the lien was given, while the holder of the notes and lien testified…