Skip to main content

Lawrence v. State

Citations

  • 20 Tex. Ct. App. 536
  • 1886 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 74

Syllabus

<p>1. Theft—Ownership.— To constitute the crime of theft-it is not essential that the thief knows who is the owner of the stolen property. On the contrary, it is sufficient if he knows that it is not his own, and he takes it to deprive the true owner of its value, whether or not he knows the true owner.</p> <p>2. Same'—Marks.— The right of the true owner of hogs, sheep and goats to his property is not affected by the statutory requirement (article 4558 of the Revised Statutes) that he shall mark his hogs, sheep and goats before or when they are six months old, and the fraudulent taking of such animals, unmarked, is as much theft as ■ though they were marked when taken. The owner’s recorded mark is not even required as the best evidence of ownership, as is the case with brands;</p> <p>8. Same—Evidence —Charge of the Court—Case Overruled.—A rule of ■ law can never be subverted by local custom, and, in so far as it holds otherwise, the case of Díbbs v. The State, 43 Texas, 650, is overruled. The trial court, in this case, properly rejected evidence to the effect that-' a general custom, in the county of the offense, gave to any one the right to kill all unmarked hogs, over twelve months old, found on the range. It was not error, therefore, to refuse a special instruction to the effect that if the hogs wére unmarked and were over six months old, and the defendant killed' them not knowing them-to belong to H., the alleged owner, he would not be guilty of theft.</p> <p>4. Same.— See the opinion in extemo for a charge of the court upon the subject of taking property under a mistaken claim of right, and upon the doctrine of reasonable doubt, held sufficient in this case.</p> <p>6. Same—Practice.— Though the trial court may qualify or modify a requested instruction, so as to make it present the law as the court conceives the law to be, the trial court is not bound to qualify or modify an illegal or erroneous charge, but may refuse it altogether.</p> <p>6. Same — Verdict.—See

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • noting that “to constitute theft it is not essential that the thief should know who is the owner of the property he has stolen” that theft “embraces the idea that the taker knew that it was not his own, and also that it was done to deprive the true owner of it”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: White

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cites

2 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.