Case Name: WARD v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1917-10-17
Citations: 197 S.W. 1102
Docket Number: No. 4605
Parties: WARD v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 197
Pages: 1102–1104

Head Matter:
WARD v. STATE.
(No. 4605.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Oct. 17, 1917.
On Motion for Rehearing, Nov. 7, 1917.)
1. Larceny <&wkey;32(5) — Indictment—Alleging Ownership.
Where the owner of a suit case and a suit of clothes which were at the residence of his father and mother wrote to his brother to send them to him, and the brother obtained their custody and control from the father and mother for this purpose, the brother was at least the special owner, and an indictment for theft properly alleged Ms ownership.
On Motion for Rehearing.
2. Larceny <&wkey;70(3) — Instructions—Ownership op Property.
On a trial for theft instructions that, the state having failed to sustain the allegation that the alleged stolen property belonged to W., or to show that he had such possession as constituted him a special owner, the jury would return a verdict of not guilty, that the mere temporary custody of the property would not constitute W. the owner, and that in order to convict defendant the jury must find that his possession was not merely temporary, but that he had the care, management, and control of the Stolen property at the time of its taking, and that if W.’s brother owned the property and W. received it for the purpose of sending it to his brother and had no other right or interest in it, the jury would find defendant not guilty, all turned upon the ownership of the property and the sufficiency of the evidence to support it, and were properly refused, where the facts showed that W. had such a special ownership as supported the allegation of ownership in him.
Appeal from Ealls County Court; F. S. Heffer, Judge.
Will Ward was convicted of theft, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
W. E. Rogers, of Marlin, for appellant. E. B. Hendricks, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
DAVIDSON, P. J.
Appellant was convicted of theft of property under the value of $50.
The case is one of circumstantial evidence, but under the facts we are of opinion that the state sufficiently made its case. In order to review appellant's contention it may be necessary to state some of the evidence. This shows that the alleged owner had a brother who was living in Ft. Worth. He had written to the alleged owner to send his suit case and a suit of clothes to him at Ft. Worth. It seems the suit case and the suit of clothes were at the residence of the father and mother of the alleged owner. They brought the clothes and suit case to the town of Marlin and turned them over to the alleged owner for the purpose of being shipped or conveyed to the brother at Ft. Worth. The alleged owner received the suit case, which contained the suit of clothes, and expected to send it to Ft. Worth by a certain woman who was going on the train, but by some means he did not find her, and concluded to send it by express. Before taking it to the express office for shipment he left it in a saloon, with the expectation of returning at the proper time to get it for the purpose of sending it to Ft. Worth. When he went for the suit case it had been taken. This is enough of the testimony to illustrate the question mainly relied upon by appellant, to wit, that the alleged owner was not such an owner under the law as justified the indictment alleging ownership in him. We are of the opinion that he was sufficiently the owner within the contemplation of the statute to authorize the allegation of ownership. The father and mother had turned it over to him for the purpose of its being shipped. He had exclusive control of it, and care and management, sufficiently so at least to make him the special owner. The objections to the testimony in this respect, as well as to the charges given and refused, are not well taken. We are of opinion that the court was correct in holding the indictment sufficiently alleged the ownership. This seems to be the main contention of appellant, and we are of opinion that it is not well taken.
The judgment is affirmed.
. <8£»For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes