Shoefercater v. State

Citations

• 5 Tex. Ct. App. 207

Syllabus

<p>1. Theft of Cattle —Evidence. —In a trial for theft of cattle, the State proved the ownership as alleged. The defendant adduced testimony tending to prove that he purchased the animals from one A., not the owner; and, in further proof of the purchase, offered an unrecorded bill of sale, entirely in the handwriting of an attesting witness, and not proved to be the act of A. Held, properly excluded, on objection of the State.</p> <p>2. Same — Charge of Court.—The jury were instructed for acquittal if they found that the accused purchased the animals from A. in good faith, whether he took a bill of sale or not; but that, if the sale was not in good faith, but made to cover a fraudulent taking, it was no defence. Held, a proper question for the jury, and fairly presented for their determination.</p> <p>3. Same—Limitation. — Trying an indictment for theft, which was filed “ March 6, 1877, the court charged that the offence was not barred by limitation if it was committed within five years preceding the 13th of March, 1877. Held, erroneous, because this warranted a conviction if the offence was committed after the filing of the indictment, —i. e., between March 6 and 13, 1877.</p> <p>4. Time is not material, except it be of the essence of the offence charged, and in general the commission of the offence need not be proved as of the date alleged; but when a limitation is prescribed for presentation of an indictment, the time alleged must be within the time limited, and not an impos. sible day, or a day subsequent to the filing of the indictment.</p>