Harwell v. State

Citations

• 22 Tex. Ct. App. 251
• 2 S.W. 606
• 1886 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 250

Syllabus

<p>1. Receiving Stolen Property—Charge of the Court—Evidence.—It was in proof that when the defendant received the animal mentioned in the indictment from one J., he received in connection with one Q-., two other animals, and that he and Gr. sold the three animals at the same time to one L. The defendant objected to all testimony in reference to the two animals not mentioned in the indictment. The trial court admitted the evidence, and instructed the jury that they could not consider .it as tending to show that defendant or J. took the animal from the possession of the lawful owner. Held, that the evidence was admissible for the purpose of showing the defendant’s fraudulent intent with respect to the yearling named in the indictment, and knowledge on his part at the time he received it that it was stolen property; and further that the charge of the court was authorized by the proof in the case, and sufficiently guarded the jury from misapplying the evidence.</p> <p>2. Same.—In rejecting evidence to the effect that, before he sold the animals to defendant and G., the vendor J. claimed them as his property, and bargained them to another party, the trial court erred. Such evidence was original and primary so far as it concerned the defendant, and he was entitled to have it considered by the jury.</p> <p>3. Same—Brands.—The record of a brand, to be legal under the provisions of Article 783 of the Penal Code, must designate the part of the animal on which the brand is to be placed. The record in this ease designated the left hip, and it was objected to as evidence of ownership because the proof showed the brand to be on the side of the animal. Held, that the variance between the place designated in the record, and the place on which the animal was branded, the record being legal, could not affect the admissibility of the record in evidence, but only its probative force, and unsupported by other evidence, the record would not be sufficient proof of ownership. Such varianc