The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1884-10-22

)t such character, ana occurred unutr |
such circumstances, that called for reply |
On his part, or that silence or acqul- |
essence, amounted to assent, then you
are authorized to consider the same in
connection with tho other evidence in
the case In determ ming the guilt or inno-
ocense of said Fed Conner" The evil
dence against both the defendants being
wholly circumatantial, the court erred
in charging the jury in these words.
"Tho evidence In the case before you
being wholly circumstantial in 80 far as
it relates or is applicable to the defend
ant Charles Conner il is unnecessary"
etc. For he expressly limits his charge
upon circumstantial evidence to the case
Of Charles Conner, thereby giving the
Jury to understand that the case of Fed
Conner did not depend wholly upon that
character of evidence, but was sup
ported, in part at least, by direct evl-
douce. II being part nt the law appli-
cable to the case, its omission was error;
so far rs Fed Conner was concerned is
reversible error, even though not
excepted to. Reversed aud remundod
rs 70 Fed Conner. Affirmed as to
Charles Conner.
Morrison VS.. the state; from Johnson
county. Opinion on rehearing 10y White,
y. /. Under an ordinary indictment for
theft, conviction may be had on proof
showing that tho taking, THOUGH with
the owners consent, WAS obtained by
false preteEt or with intent to deprive
the owners of the property and apprO-
pirate II TO the use and beuett of the
talCer. In order TO sustain prOsoCu-
ton for theft when .h0 taking was
originally lawful, the proof must show
that the taking was obtained by means
n Iul lon ttrpin z l. a with infant Ia
deprive tho owner Of the value OF the
PROPERTY aud appropriate IT TO
tho benefit OF the takor.
! Tho foloniOuS intent is the
very gist Of the ofi'onsc, and is essential
TO the crimo Of theft in all its phases
| This intent must exist ~ the time Of tho
! taking. No subsequent felunious in
tent will render the previous taking To-
! lunious.
When the horse was delivered on hire
or loan, and such delivery WAS obtained
hOna-iide, no subsequent wrongful CON
version pending, tho contract would
amount to a felony If ono hires q
| horse and sells it before "A journey is
performed, or sells it after, before IL is
! returned, he commits no larceny, whore
the lelOniOus intent came upon him sui
scquent 10 his receiving it into posses
sion. Under the facts Of this case, the
| judge should have granted the motion
| Tor new trial. Reversed aud reminded
| CarOthGrs vs.. Wilkinson, from Milan
county: Opinion by White, o.. j.
NJ. Il ). company sued one Mays IN
| Galveston county, and attachment is
sued against Mays property i'm Milan
county, and was levied on GO head O
cattle running on the range. The oil
Ger cid not mako the levy by taking pos
session of the cattle, but made grange
levy" Mays reployicd 10y giving bone
and the sheriff released the cattle. IN,
replevy bond being returned ~ Calves
ton county, the suit was tried and judy
mcnt rendo ed against Mays for tht
debt and for foreclosure OF the attach
mcnt on the cattle. After rendition q
Judgment, but before salo Of the cattl
under attachment, appellant, withOu
notice of the attachment proceedings
purchased twGuty-Ouo head Of the chttl
from Mays. At the attachment sale
subsequent to appellants purchase
appellee bought the siNty-siN head o
cattle. Appellee brings this suit 10 70
cover the cattle bought of Mays by 81
pellant, and charged to have been Il
legally converted by Mays, ono Kolt an,
appellant. Held: First-As the cas-
was tried ut term of the county cour
beginning on the first Monday In OctC
her, 1883, and as that torn was illegal th
Judgment is void. 6 Texas Law Re
view, 3O9). Second Had tho Ohjoctio
been made to the levy OF the writ OF AZ
tachmeut Chat IL was not made b
> designating reasonable number {
animals aud describing them by the
marks and brands, done in the presouC
of two or more credible persons, an
notice In writing given the owner or III
, hcrdcrs, ctc.,) in the original su
in Galveston county IL would have 10
: validated It. hut being made for Oh
first time by purchaser from the %
tgchmyut debtor, and for the sole PA
pose of defeating the title of the pu
chaser Ut attachment sale, il cam,
avail Third Under the law as IL no
h., the execution ut "a repleyy bond !
attachment absolutely releases OH
q property lowed on and gives the q
tachmont debtor control over, and rigl
To- dispose OF the property. The for
closure ~ tho attachment lien at Ga
weston, ana the sale of property uud,
it, were both without authority ur Ia,
aud conveyed no title as against on
purchasing tho property of the leg
owner having rightUlly required tit
I and possession OF % 10y roplcvyiug und,
tine law. Reversed and romuudpd.
.