Lowe v. State

Citations

• 11 Tex. Ct. App. 253

Syllabus

<p>1. Theft—Indictment.— Though one who takes up and holds an estray in conformity with the estray laws acquires such a special property in the animal as that an indictment for theft of it may allege the ownership in him, a mere partial compliance with the estray laws, such as preliminary advertisement, manifesting an intention to estray, does not confer either right of possession or special property, and an indictment that alleges the ownership in an unknown person is sufficient.</p> <p>3. Continuance.— Application for a continuance was filed on September 19th, and recited the presence under subpoena of the witness at the previous term of court and his subsequent temporary departure from the State, and alleged that on the 13th of September defendant ‘ ‘ asked ” for an attachment for the witness. Held, that a total want of diligence is manifest, and the continuance was properly refused.</p> <p>3. Charge of the Court—Practice.— Even if tenable under any circumstances, the objection that the charge of the court was not filed until the day after it was read to the jury, comes too late when made for the first time in this court.</p> <p>4. Same.—The indictment charged the defendant and Wm. Lowe jointly, and the caption of the charge so stated the case, but the first paragraph announced to the jury the severance of the two, and the separate trial of the defendant. Held, that the charge so stating the case raises no presumption that it was prepared for or given in a case other than that on trial. And if it had been, and was applicable to the case on trial, the fact that it had been used in another case would not be ground for new trial.</p> <p>5. Evidence.— See evidence held sufficient to sustain a conviction for theft of cattle.</p>