Wafford v. State

Citations

• 44 Tex. 439

Syllabus

<p>1. Theft of cattle.—See evidence held insufficient to sustain a verdict of guilty of theft.</p> <p>2. Same.—When the recent possession by the accused of the cattle stolen was relied on as proof of guilt, and the testimony showed that the cattle were butchered by the accused at a public pen, and tlie hides, heads, and other evidence of their identity left exposed for a week or two, held, that the testimony was inconsistent with the guilt of the accused.</p> <p>3. Witness—General character.—In impeaching a witness by proving his bad character for truth and varacity, such character must be notorious in his neighborhood; and while the proof may be made by one witness, still in weighing the evidence the production of but one witness would not ordinarily be satisfactory.</p> <p>4. Venue.—Where cattle stolen were last seen near the county line, and the evidence of their appropriation was, their being found in an adjoining county, on proof of the theft, the jury could presume that the cattle were taken from the county where last seen.</p>