Fore v. State

Citations

• 5 Tex. Ct. App. 251

Syllabus

<p>1. Theft. — The possession and ownership of the property stolen need not necessarily be in the same person in order to constitute theft. And where one has the general and another the special property in the thing stolen, the ownership may be alleged in either.</p> <p>2. Evidence must correspond with the allegations, and be confined to the points in issue.</p> <p>3. Same. — Evidence which merely tends to connect the accused with other offences, distinct from that for which he is on trial, must be excluded. The exceptions to this general rule are confined to cases which relate to knowledge or intent of the party as to some material fact which, though apparently collateral, had some bearing on the main fact.</p> <p>4. Same. — It is for the court to determine whether or not evidence offered is competent as throwing light upon the issue, or tending to establish guilt or innocence; and if competent, to admit it to be considered by the jury as other testimony in the case; otherwise, to exclude it. This duty of thet court should not be transferred to the iury.</p> <p>5. Same. —It was error, in a trial for theft, to admit evidence of the extradition of the accused from the republic of Mexico, on a charge of assault with intent to murder.</p>