Mulligan v. State

Citations

• 25 Tex. Ct. App. 199
• 7 S.W. 664
• 1887 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 238

Syllabus

<p>1. Arson—Evidence—Term Defined.—“House,” as that term is defined by our statute denouncing the offense of arson, is “any building or structure enclosed within walls and covered, whatever may be the materials used for building.” Arson, as ••(■fined by the statute, is the wilful burn- , ing of any house included within the meaning of the term “house” as above defined.. The indictment in this ease charged the burning of a house. The proof showed that the accused, then a tenant and occupant of the premises, first demolished the house and then burned the material of which it had been constructed. Held, that the proof was insufficient to support the conviction for arson.</p> <p>2. Same—Indictment.—Under our statute of arson a tenant during his lease is to be deemed a part owner with the proprietor of the leased house; and a part owner can not lawfully bum the house; nor can the owner burn his house if it contains property belonging to another. Buu an indictment against an owner or part owner for burning his house must allege such ownership in the accused, and also the particular facts which inculpate him within the exceptions to a lawful burning, as pro vided in article 659 of the Penal Code. See the opinion on the question.</p> <p>3. Same—Pact Case.—Note that the indictment in this case is insufficient. in its allegations to warrant the conviction of the accused as a tenant. and that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction, inasmuvii as it fails to show the burning of “a house.”</p>