Alexander v. State

Citations

• 24 Tex. Ct. App. 126
• 5 S.W. 840
• 1887 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 172

Syllabus

<p>1. Theft—Possession—Evidence—Variance.—1The indictment alleges both the ownership and possession of the alleged stolen animal to have been in one W. The evidence shows conclusively that, when taken, the animal was under the care, management and control of one F., who held it for W. Held, that the variance between the allegation and proof of possession is fatal to the conviction.</p> <p>2. Same—Brand—Charge of the Court—While the statute makes a recorded brand admissible as evidence of ownership, the statute does not make it prima facie proof of ownership, and it can be considered only as any other evidence before the jury could be considered. To have given a requested charge upon the effect of such evidence would, therefore, have been to give a charge upon the weight of evidence, which the trial court properly refused to do.</p>