Priesmuth v. State

Citations

• 1 Tex. Ct. App. 480

Syllabus

<p>1. Theft—Evidence.—On a trial for theft of cattle the state offered in evidence the recorded brand of the alleged owner; to which the accused objected, because the indictment charged the offense to have been committed the day previous to the record of the brand. Held, that, in connection with other proof of ownership, the brand was admissible; but, without, other proof, was not sufficient evidence of the ownership to support the conviction.</p> <p>2. Charge of the Court.—However correct in the abstract a requested charge may be, it was not error to refuse it when there was no evidence to-which it was applicable.</p> <p>3. Same.—In criminal cases, when the presiding judge has charged to the-jury the law applicable to the case as made by the evidence, he has done everything required of him in this respect, except that, in felony cases, he-should properly instruct the jury on the subject of reasonable doubt and the presumption of innocence.</p> <p>4. Cattle Brands.—The act of March 23, 1874, “to encourage stock raising,” requires the owner, in recording his brand, to designate the part of the animal on which the brand is placed.</p> <p>6. Same.—The record of a brand designated the hip as the locality of the-brand, while the evidence on the trial showed the brand to be on the ribs. Such a discrepancy, when the recorded brand was the only, or principal, evidence of the ownership, was material, and the conviction must be set aside.</p>