Case ID: sw_205/html/0986-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "DAVIDSON, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

BELL v. STATE.
    (No. 5129.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Oct. 23, 1918.)
    1. Larceny <&wkey;30(l) — Indictment—Description of Property.
    Indictment for theft of a bale of cotton, giving its value, need not allege its weight.
    2. Larceny <&wkey;31 — Indictment — Value of Property.
    Indictment alleging taking of a bale of seed cotton, “of the value of $100,” sufficiently alleges its worth.
    Appeal from District Court,' Wood County; J. R. Warren, Judge.
    John Bell was convicted of theft, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    E. B. Hendricks, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   DAVIDSON, P. J.

Appellant was convicted of the theft of a bale of seed cotton valued at $100; his punishment being assessed at three years’ confinement in the penitentiary.

He made a motion to quash the indictment, because it charged no offense against the law, and because the description of the property was not sufficient to require him to plead, or form the basis of conviction, and further because the indictment, in alleging the theft of one bale of seed cotton, failed to give its weight and value. The indictment charged that appellant “did then and there unlawfully and fraudulently take from the possession of one Jim Ellison one bale of seed cotton, of the value of $100, the same then and there being the corporeal personal property,” etc., of Jim Ellison. We are of opinion the indictment is sufficient. It was not necessary to give the weight of the bale of cotton. There were sufficient allegations to show that it was a felony, and that it was a bale of cotton, and that it was worth $100.

Appellant also contends in his motion for new trial that the court committed error in permitting the witness Ellison to testify that a bale of seed cotton usually weighed about 1,500 pounds. Just how this arose is not shown, even in the motion for new trial, and, if there was an exception reserved in the form of a bill, it is not presented in the record. We are of opinion- there is no sufficient error shown by this record to require a reversal.

The judgment is affirmed.