Cohen v. State

Citations

• 20 Tex. Ct. App. 224
• 1886 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 38

Syllabus

<p>1. Embezzlement—Charge of the Court—Venue — Case Stated.—It was proved in a prosecution for the embezzlement of goods, that, the goods being selected from their stock by the owners and the accused, acting together, the owners packed the same in trunks, and at the request of the accused delivered the trunks to the railway company in Galveston for shipment to Luling, paying the excess freight and receiving checks for the trunks upon the accused’s ticket, which checks they delivered to the accused in Galveston. Held, that the delivery of the checks in Galveston was a sufficient delivery of the goods in Galveston to fix in that county the venue in a prosecution of the accused for the embezzlement of the goods. Sre the opinion in extenso for a charge of the trial court upon the subject held correct.</p> <p>2. Same.— Embezzlement, under article 219 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, “may be prosecuted in any county in which the offender may have taken or received the property, or through or into which he may have undertaken to transport it.”</p> <p>3. Same — Charge of the Court.—Limitation as to the period of time when a prosecution for crime is barred is not a question to be submitted by the charge to the jury in the absence of evidence which presents that issue.</p> <p>4. Same — Consent.—To support a conviction for the appropriation of property belonging to joint owners, it devolves upon the State to prove the non-consent of all the owners.</p> <p>5. Same — Fact Case.— See the statement of the case for evidence which, failing to establish the non-consent of one of the joint owners of the goods, is held insufficient to support a conviction for the embezzlement of the goods.</p>