State v. Mitchell

O’NIELL, Chief Justice.

The appellant was convicted of the crime of having stolen property in his possession, knowing that it was stolen. He relies upon two bills of exception.

The first bill has reference to the opening statement made by the district attorney to the jury. The objection was that the district attorney said that he intended to prove that a deputy sheriff found in the defendant’s home “dresses, trousers and shoes” which were stolen from a railroad company; the indictment charging only that the defendant had in his possession 48 pairs of shoes which he knew were stolen from the…