Cunningham v. State

Citations

• 27 Tex. Ct. App. 479
• 11 S.W. 485
• 1889 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 69

Syllabus

<p>1. Theft—Evidence.—The indictment charged the defendant with the theft in Dallas county, Texas, of a “coupon railroad ticket, which said ticket entitled the holder thereof to one first class passage from Caldwell in Burleson county, Texas, to New York City by way of Purcell, Kansas City, Quincy, Chicago and Buffalo,” the said ticket being the property of the Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway, and of the value of fifty-seven dollars. The State’s witness Cade testified that the value of the ticket, as representing and good for the fare over the said line from Caldwell to New York, was fifty-seven dollars, and that as representing the fare from Dallas to New York, deducting the fare from Caldwell to Dallas, it was fifty-two dollars. The State’s witness Hirsch testified that the ticket, as representing the price of a first class fare from Dallas to New York, was worth in Dallas the sum of fifty-five dollars; to all of which testimony the defense objected that the market value of the said ticket in Dallas was the one question at issue. But held that, in view of Hirsch’s further testimony that he paid the defendant twenty-five dollars for the ticket, the admission of the evidence, if erroneous, constituted immaterial and harmless error.</p> <p>% Same.—The defense offered in evidence a letter addressed by the general passenger agent of the Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway to the conductors on the lines of the said railway, notifying them of the theft of the said ticket, and directing them to take up the same if offered for fare, cancel the same and return it to the office of the writer. Held, that the letter being relevant.to no issue in the ease, was properly excluded.</p> <p>3. Same—Charge op the Court.—There was no contest or dispute as to the ownership of the said ticket, which fact was proved as alleged in the indictment. In this state of the case, and in the absence of a requested instruction to supply the omission, the failure of the trial court to instruct the