Beck v. State

Citations

• 44 Tex. 430

Syllabus

<p>1. Regent possession of stolen property.—Possession of stolen property, to raise a presumption of guilt, must be recent; and such possession cannot be infered from testimony showing that the accused, in 1874, had possession of and publicly used a mule which had escaped or had been stolen from its owner in 1872.</p> <p>2. Alteration of brand.—Where the testimony - showed .that the accused had bought the animal from one in the neighborhood, and had paid for it, and had used it publicly for several months before claimed by the- owner, the alteration of the brand by the accused cannot be regarded as referable only to guilt of theft; such act may be referable to a desire to retain the property and to destroy the effect of the brand as evidence.</p> <p>3. New trial.—See facts sufficient to require a new trial.</p>