Case Name: ARSENEAUX v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1911-11-08
Citations: 140 S.W. 776
Docket Number: 
Parties: ARSENEAUX v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 140
Pages: 776–776

Head Matter:
ARSENEAUX v. STATE.
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Nov. 8, 1911.)
LaeceNY (§ 34 ) — Indictment—Requisites.
An indictment for larceny, which alleges a joint ownership by two or more persons, must allege the nonconsent of each owner, and it is not sufficient to merely allege the want of consent jointly.
LEd. Note. — For other cases, see Larceny, Cent. Dig. § 61; Dec. Dig. § 34. ]
Appeal from Criminal District Court, Harris County; C. W. Robinson, Judge.
Ed Arseneaux was convicted of larceny, and he appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Lane, Wolters & Storey, for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
For other oases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
DAVIDSON, P. J.
The indictment charges appellant with the theft of property of Hutchinson & Mitchell, a firm composed of Moses Hutchinson and H. L. Mitchell, out of the possession of said Hutchinson & Mitchell, then and there without the consent of said Hutchinson & Mitchell, with intent then and there to deprive said owner of the value of same.
The only question presented for revision is the indictment is defective, in that it does not sufficiently negative the consent of the joint ownership. This position seems to be well taken under quite a lot of authorities. Where the indictment alleges joint ownership of two or more persons, the nonconsent of each owner must be alleged, and it will not be sufficient to allege the want of consent jointly. McIntosh v. State, 18 Tex. App. 286; Taylor v. State, 18 Tex. App. 490; Williams v. State, 23 Tex. App. 620, 5 S. W. 129; Taylor v. State, 23 Tex. App. 640, 5 S. W. 141; Young v. State, 59 S. W. 891. Quite a lot of authorities might be mentioned as supporting this proposition. These, we think, are sufficient.
The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.