Case Name: DECKER v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1936-05-13
Citations: 94 S.W.2d 438
Docket Number: No. 18308
Parties: DECKER v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 94
Pages: 438–439

Head Matter:
DECKER v. STATE.
No. 18308.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
May 13, 1936.
M. E. Gates, of Huntsville, for appellant. „
Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
HAWKINS, Judge.
Conviction' is for theft, punishment assessed at fifteen days in the county jail. By an ordinary indictment for theft, appellant is alleged to have taken a riding planter from the possession of D. H. Hardy, in_January, 1934.
Appellant had been a tenant on a farm of Hardy for two years. Under the rent contract, Hardy furnished appellant with teams and farming tools. Before coming to Hardy's place, appellant had lived in Madison county and Hardy moved him from his former home to the farm in Walker county. Appellant had the planter in question when he moved to the Hardy place. According to Hardy's testimony, he was to be paid for moving appellant, but the latter did not have the money and by agreement sold Hardy the planter in payment. The farm, upon which appellant lived was four miles from Hardy's residence. The latter never took actual possession of the planter, but during the two years it remained in appellant's possession. Hardy testified that he told appellant to leave the planter on the premises when he moved.
This prosecution grew out of the fact that the planter was sold and delivered to one Gregory. Mrs. Decker (wife of appellant) testified that the planter belonged to her, was purchased by her with her separate money and property, and that she sold the planter to Gregory.
Under the state's testimony, it is clear that the possession of the planter never passed to Hardy, even though appellant may have been holding it under Hardy's consent after a claimed purchase by Hardy from appellant.
It was called to the trial court's attention by a refused special chargé that un der such circumstances appellant could not be convicted under an ordinary indictment for theft. See section 2522, Branch's Ann. Tex.P.C.; McWhorter v. State, 125 Tex.Cr.R. 71, 65 S.W.(2d) 1101.
The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.