Case ID: tex-ct-app_4/html/0332-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "White, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

J. J. Wolf v. The State.
    1. Variance. — A stolen animal was described in the indictment as a “red beef steer,” whereas the witness described the animal of which he spoke as a “red, roan beef steer.” Held, not a material variance.
    2. Ownership—Evidence. —To establish the ownership of a branded animal alleged to have been stolen, it is not necessary that the State shall prove the brand and the record of it. Evidence of the ownership, independent of the brand, is competent.
    3. Continuance. — Indicted for theft of a steer, the accused applied for a continuance to obtain the evidence of a witness by whom he expected to prove a purchase of the steer from the witness by accused: but the showing alleged neither the residence of the witness nor the place of the purchase. Held, that the continuance was correctly refused.
    Appeal from the District Court of Limestone. Tried below before the Hon. D. M. Prendergast.
    
      W. H. Adams, for the appellant.
    
      W. B. Dunham, for the State.
   White, J.

The animal alleged to have been stolen is described in the indictment as “ a red beef steer.” One of the witnesses describes him as “ a red, roan beef steer.” It is claimed by appellant that this is a fatal variance. This court is of the opinion that it is not.

Nor was it necessary for the State to show a recorded brand, since the ownership of the animal was established, positively and emphatically, independently of the brand. The evidence was sufficient.

The application for continuance was properly overruled. It was not stated in the affidavit where the purchase was made, or where John Johnson, the party from whom the purchase was claimed to have been made, resided. A John Johnson was put upon the stand by the State, and testified that he had never sold defendant a steer, at any time; that he was the only John Johnson in his county ; that he knew defendant, but had not seen him for about four years. Defendant did not introduce a single witness upon the trial.

There is no error, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.