Wicklund v. State

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

The soundness of the conclusion reached on the subject of ownership and variance is challenged. It is to be observed from the statement made in the original opinion (which reflects the record as understood by the writer), that the property was not in the actual possession of either Steele or Colley. It is conceived that the relationship of each of them was such as warranted the naming of either of them as the owner. Citing many precedents, Mr. Branch, in his Ann. Tex. P. C., sec. 2434, says: “Where property is owned — either as general or…