Case Name: William Smedly et al. v. The State
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1867-04
Citations: 30 Tex. 214
Docket Number: 
Parties: William Smedly et al. v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Reports
Volume: 30
Pages: 214–224

Head Matter:
William Smedly et al. v. The State.
An indictment for robbery should state clearly the ownership of the property charged to have been taken, as well as the name of the person from whom it was taken. (Paschal’s Dig., Art. 2379.)
Donley, J., dissented, and insisted that the indictment, though not good as an indictment for robbery, was good as an indictment for assault and battery.
Error from Hunt. The case was tried before Hon. W. GL T. Weaver, one of the district judges.
The indictment charged the appellants with an assault and battery on Crely, and putting him in fear, and while in such fear they “then and there, with force and arms, fraudulently, unlawfully, did take and carry away from and out of the possession of him the said Sin Crely one shot-gun of the value of twenty five dollars, the said shot-gun being the corporeal personal property of one-, and within the legal custody and control of him the said Sin Crely, and with the intent then and there to appropriate the said shotgun, the property as aforesaid, to the use of them and each of them.” John Smedly was put upon his trial without plea, as far as the record shows, and the jury found a verdict as follows: “We the jury find the defendant, John Smedly as alleged in the indictment, and fix his punishment at the penitentiary for two years.”
The defendant moved for a new trial and in arrest of judgment, which being overruled, he appealed. The charge of the court is in the record; but as the case turned upon the sufficiency 'of the indictment, it is unnecessary.
Beeves Douglass, for the appellants.
William M. Walton, Attorney General, for the state.

Opinion:
Willie, J.
The indictment in this case charges that the property taken by the defendant was "the coporeal personal property of one-, and within the legal custody and control" of the party upon whom the assault was committed. It is defective in not giving the name of the party to whom the article taken belonged. An indictment for robbery must state correctly the ownership of the property, (3 Arch. Crim. Plead., 417, note 3,) and all the approved common-law forms of indictments set forth the ownership of the property taken, as well as the name of the person from whom it was taken. (3 Arch. Crim. Plead., 417, note 3; Whart. Prac.) And our statute does not change the rules of the common law so as to allow any less particularity in this respect. It should clearly appear from the indictment that the article taken belongs to some person other than the accused, or that the party deprived of the possession through violence is entitled to such possession as against the defendant. For aught that appears from this indictment, the gun may have been the lawful property of Smedly, although in the legal custody and control of another. The owner cannot be guilty of theft, according to our statute, by taking such property from the party in possession, though under circumstances which would otherwise amount to this offense. (Penal Code, Art. 751.) Nor do we think that he would be guilty of robbery, though he obtained possession of it through violence and putting in fear. It is held at common law that if a party, bona fide, believing that property in the personal possession of another belongs to himself, takes that property away from him with menaces and violence, that is not robbery. (1 Russ, on Crimes, 872.) He certainly would not be liable to an indictment for robbery if the property actually belonged to him and he was entitled to its possession.
Had the indictment charged that the gun was the property of the person from whom it was taken, it would probably have been supported by proof that this article was in his legal custody and control, though belonging to some third party. But in this indictment there is no allegation that it belonged to any one, much less does it affirmatively appear that it is the property of some one other than the defendants.
The judgment of the court below, refusing to sustain the motion in arrest of judgment, must be reversed, and the cause
Dismissed.