Case ID: sw_136/html/0056-01.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

WATT v. STATE.
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    March 29, 1911.)
    LAECENY (§ 34) — PEOSECUTION—-INDICTMENT —Taking.
    Where the complaint and information in a prosecution for theft merely stated that the defendant unlawfully took one pair of lines, the property of one M., without his consent, and failed to charge a fraudulent taking, they were defective.
    [Ed. Note. — Por other cases, see Larceny, Cent. Dig. §§ 61, 94, 95; Dec. Dig. § 34.]
    Appeal from Gregg County Court; J. H. Mcl-Ianey, Judge.
    Harvey Watt was convicted of theft, and appeals.
    Reversed, and prosecution ordered dismissed.
    Lacy & Bramlette, for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
    
      
      For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep’r Indexes
    
   DAVIDSON, P. J.

The complaint and information are in the same language, in the following respect: “One Harvey Watt did then and there unlawfully take from the possession of J. H. Morris one pair of wagon lines, of the value of $2.25, the same being the corporeal personal property of J. H. Morris, without the consent of the said J. H. Morris,” etc. Both the information and complaint are attacked, because they fail to charge one of the statutory ingredients of theft, to wit, fraudulent taking. It will be noticed that the information and complaint are both defective in this respect. This character of pleading has been held vicious in all the cases that have been called to our attention in the history of the state, and in fact the statute defines theft to be the fraudulent taking. Without this allegation the pleading would be deficient, and fatally so.

The judgment is reversed, and the prosecution is ordered dismissed.