Cooksie v. State

Citations

• 26 Tex. Ct. App. 72
• 9 S.W. 58
• 1888 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 155

Syllabus

<p>1. Agency—Embezzlement—Evidence—Charge of the Court.—The proof in this case clearly establishing the agency of the accused with respect to the alleged embezzled property, the charge of the trial court upon the subject (for which see the statement of the case) was correct.</p> <p>3. Evidence—Bill of Exceptions.—The principal witness for the prosecution was asked by the defense, on cross examination, if she was not the mistress of the alleged injured party, which question was not allowed by the trial court. The bill of exceptions reserved to this ruling fails to show that the accused intended or expected to elicit an affirmative answer, and was, therefore, insufficient and too indefinite to bring the question in review.</p> <p>3. Standard of Value—Charge of the Court.—Second hand c'o'hing has no such market value as will represent an actu-tl value in determining the grade of the offense of theft of such property. Nor can the rale obtaining among dealeis in second hand clothing to sell for fifty per cent less than original cost” furnish anything like a just standard of value. See the statement of the case for a charge of the court held, under this rule, to be correct.</p> <p>4 Same—Privilege of Counsel.—See the opinion for remarks used in argument by the counsel-for the State and held to have been an abuse of the privilege of argument, and for a charge upon the question requested by the defense, the refusal to give which is material error.</p>