Lewallen v. State
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
The State proved by the owner of the horse that he made a contract with defendant to hire the horse and that he sent same by a stable hand, as requested by defendant, to the latter’s hotel, and that he a few days later heard that defendant had sold the horse, etc.
Read the full summary
The State proved by the owner of the horse that he made a contract with defendant to hire the horse and that he sent same by a stable hand, as requested by defendant, to the latter’s hotel, and that he a few days later heard that defendant had sold the horse, etc. Defendant’s witness Smith testified that he was the man that made the contract to hire the horse and ordered it sent to the hotel and after-wards traded it to defendant; this was denied by the owner who was re-called to the stand and stated positively that he made the' contract with defendant. This with the facts disclosed in the…
1Opinion of the Court
DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.
The indictment charges that appellant obtained and had possession of a horse by contract or hiring and subsequently fraudulently converted the animal to his own use. The questions are raised on the motion for new trial, there having been no bills of exception reversed. In copying the statute under which the indictment was framed, instead of the word “his” the word “is” is used in the charge, in the following portion of said charge, “convert said property to is own use with intent to deprive the owner of the value of the same.” Exception is reserved to this. We are of…
2Cited by2 opinions
- MacKie v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1963
- Wright v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1987