Duren v. State

Citations

• 15 Tex. Ct. App. 624
• 1884 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 54

Syllabus

<p>1. Theft—Indictment—Ownership.—Where one person has a general property in the thing stolen, and it has been taken from another who. has the possession, charge and control of the same, an indictment for theft may allege the ownership to be in the latter. Note the opinion for facts in proof, held not to show a variance with the allegation of ownership made in the indictment.</p> <p>3. Same—Evidence.—This court will not. interfere with the verdict of a jury upon a question of possession when the same turned upon a mere conflict of evidence.</p> <p>3. Same—Consent—Practice.—It is a general rule that, -when the property stolen is owned by two persons, the proof must show the want of consent of both to the taking. This rule, hovtfever, does not apply in a case where the joint owner whose want of consent is not proved is shown to have been a parlieeps criminis. See this ease in illustration.</p> <p>4. Same.—Where an owner or joint owner of property in the possession of another is disqualified by any of the provisions of Article 730 of the Penal Code from taking possession of the same, he cannot, by consent, delegate to another person the right to take the property, and the consent of such owner or joint owner cannot affect the amenability of the taker for theft of the property from the person in possession.</p> <p>5. Same—Penalty.—The information charged the theft of two hundred pounds of cotton of the aggregate value of six dollars, q.nd the proof showed the theft of seventy-five pounds of the aggregate value of three-dollars. It is insisted that this variance is fatal to the conviction, in asmueh as the proof should correspond with the allegation. But held, that, inasmuch as the information and conviction were for a misdemeanor, the objection is not well taken. The rule would be otherwise, if the value of the property stolen could affect the grade or punishment of the-offense.</p>