Case ID: tex_41/html/0649-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Roberts, Chief Justice.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Andrew Williams v. The State.
    Theft prom a house—Domestic servant.—A person lured for an hour to carry wood from the street to the back yard, and passing through the house in such labor, is not a domestic servant, nor is such person relieved from the penalty of “ theft from a house ” for stealing from the house through which he passed in his employment.
    Appeal from Harris. Tried below before the Hon. Samuel Dodge, judge of criminal court.
    Williams was indicted and convicted of stealing twenty-five cakes of the value of one cent each, and one dollar and ten cents fractional currency, from the house of Adolph Heis and Jacob Weis.
    The State proved the theft as alleged, and that at the time of the theft Heis and Weis had employed the accused to carry some wood from the street to their back yard, and that it was necessary for accused to pass through the storehouse in carrying the wood into the yard; that the employment was for the special job of carrying in the wood, and lasted about an hour; and while engaged in carrying in the wood defendant committed the theft- of taking the money from the till of said store and the cakes from the cases. "~!r";
    
      The punishment was fixed at two years in the penitentiary.
    No counsel for appellant.
    
      George Clark, Attorney General, for the State.
   Roberts, Chief Justice.

Was the defendant a domestic servant by being hired for an hour to carry wood from the street to the back yard, he having to pass in carrying it through a house, from which, while passing through, he stole some cakes and money, is the only question in this case.

*

We think that did not make him a domestic servant in the contemplation of the law, which relieves a person on that account from the increased penalty imposed on stealing from a house, which subject has been considered and discussed at this term more fully than is required in this case in the case of Wakefield v. The State.

Judgment affirmed.

Aeeirmed.