Skipworth v. State

Citations

• 8 Tex. Ct. App. 135

Syllabus

<p>1 Theft — Bobbery. —At common law, robbery was regarded as an aggravated species of larceny, and under the Code- of this State there is a still closer assimilation between the offences of robbery and theft. See the opinion in full on this subject.</p> <p>2. Same. — On trial for theft of property over the value of $20, a conviction may be had for that offence notwithstanding the evidence shows such a “putting in fear” as would have sufficed to sustain a prosecution for robbery.</p> <p>3. CoNTunjAN-CE. — The law requires of a defendant a strict compliance with its exact requirements upon applications for a continuance. What constitutes legal diligence to enforce the attendance of witnesses is explicitly-prescribed by the law itself, and defendants who deviate from its directions must abide the consequences.</p> <p>4. Same. — The sheriff of the county wherein the absent witness resides is the proper officer to execute an attachment for his attendance at the District Court of another county. Delivery of the process to the sheriff of the forum is not diligence.</p> <p>5. Indictment — Practice. — The Code directs that the names of the witnesses on whose testimony the indictment is found shall be indorsed thereupon ; but no exception either to the substance or form of an indictment lies for non-compliance with this direction. On suggestion in limine, the court should have the omission supplied, but it comes too late in a motion for new trial.</p> <p>6. Theft. — Indictment for theft of money alleged the ownership and possession in one D. and one W. The proof showed that they were mercantile partners, and that the bulk of the money was on deposit with them for owners whose want of consent to the taking was not proved. Held, that the ownership was well laid in the bailees, and proof that the money was taken without their consent was sufficient on that part of the case.</p>