Case Name: MARTIN v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1923-05-16
Citations: 254 S.W. 971
Docket Number: No. 7196
Parties: MARTIN v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 254
Pages: 971–973

Head Matter:
MARTIN v. STATE.
(No. 7196.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
May 16, 1923.
Rehearing Denied Oct. 17, 1923.)
1. Indictment and information <&wkey;125(13) — Indictment for theft of two notes held not duplicitous.
An indictment charging accused with the theft of two notes of the alleged value of $500 each, and describing each note, was not duplicitous since it is proper to charge in one count theft of various articles, and to describe them therein.
2, Larceny <&wkey;| — Charge of theft involves issue of fraudulent taking of property.
The charge _ of theft involves the issue of the fraudulent taking of property.
S. Larceny <&wkey;i43 — Evidence held admissible on question of fraud, as within the charge of theft.
Where accused, charged with theft of two notes, asserted as a defense that he had taken the notes under a claim of right and by permission of the owner, evidence that after coming into possession of the notes by means of a false and forged order as claimed by the prosecution, accused collected the money due on the notes and appropriated it, was admissible as affecting the question of fraud involved in the charge of theft.
On Motion for Rehearing.
4. Indictment and Information i&wkey;l 19 —Larceny _&wkey;>28( I) — -Indictment held sufficiently certain to charge theft of two notes; aver-ments as to one, if incomplete, being sur-' plusage.
An indictment charging accused with the theft of two notes of even date of equal amounts, with the same maker and same payee, held sufficiently certain, and if as to one of the notes the indictment was incomplete that averment could be treated as surplusage.
5. Indictment and information <&wkey;ll25(l) — Duplicitous indictment charges more than one offense in same count.
A duplicitous indictment is one that charges in the same count more than one offense.
6. Larceny <&wkey;53 — 'Testimo-ny that owner of notes collected by accused did not receive proceeds held competent on issue raised.
Where accused, charged with the theft of two notes, asserted as a defense that the money collected by him was forwarded to J. as a deposit for the benefit of the owner (prosecuting witness), who received the money, it was competent for prosecuting witness to testify he had never received any of the proceeds.
7. Larceny &wkey;>7l(2) — Instruction held fairly to present theory of defense that notes accused was alleged to have stolen were obtained! by him in representative capacity.
Where accused, charged with the theft of notes, asserted as a defense that he was authorized by the owner under a written order to obtain the notes from the bank, an instruction fairly presented accused’s theory of defense where it informed the jury that, even though accused acquired the notes by a fraudulent device, no conviction could, be had unless at the very time he received them he formed the intent to appropriate them to his own use and to deprive the owner of their value.
8. Criminal law <&wkey;ll 128(4) — Appellate court held without authority to consider affidavit filed several months after record was filed on appeal.
Appellate court held without authority to consider an affidavit signed by J. supporting accused’s theory of defense, where the affidavit was filed several months after the record was filed on appeal, and no statement from J. was presented in the trial court, and no motion made for a continuance.
Appeal from District Court, Gregg County; P. O. Beard, Judge.
P. B. Martin was convicted of felony theft, and appeals.
Affirmed.
J. N. Campbell and E. B. Martin, both of Longview, for appellant.
W. A. Keeling, Atty. Gen., and C. L. Stone, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, J.
Appellant was convicted in the district court of Gregg county of the offense of felony theft, and his punishment fixed at five years in the penitentiary.
Appellant was charged by indictment with the theft of two notes of the alleged value of $500 each. Each of said notes is described in the indictment, because of which fact'appellant made a motion to quash the indictment upon the ground of duplicity. Said instrument is not subject to the complaint. It is proper to charge in one count theft of various articles and to describe them therein.
There is but one bill of exceptions in this record, and that complains of the action of the trial court in permitting the owner of the alleged stolen notes to testify that this appellant had collected the money called for by said notes, and had not accounted for same to said owner. The only objection made to said testimony was that it did not bear on the issue involved in the indictment. We regret our inability to agree to this contention. The charge of theft involves .the issue of the fraudulent taking of the property. Apparently it was claimed by the appellant in this case that he did take the property, but under a claim of right and by permission of the owner. The fact that after coming into possession of the notes, by means of a false and forged order as claimed by the state, appellant collected the money due on the notes and appropriated it, would be permissible as affecting the question of fraud involved in the charge of theft.
In appellant's motion for new trial it is insisted that the evidence does not support the judgment. We cannot agree to this proposition. The issue was sharply drawn as to whether appellant came into possession of the notes by means of an order signed by the alleged owner of same, or whether said order was in fact forged by appellant. This issue was submitted to the jury in terms so appropriate and apparently satisfactory to appellant' as that no exceptions were taken thereto. Appellant claimed that he came into possession of the notes as the legitimate representative of the owner, and that he collected something over $1,000 due thereon, and that he sent it to a man in Oklahoma by the name of Jacstone for some kind of invest-, ment or safe-keeping for the alleged owner. He claimed that he had sent to the owner an order upon Jacstone for the money. Evidently the contention of the state was that the claim of appellant, that' he sent the money of'said owner to Jacstone and that Jacstone had it and had failed to account to the owner for it, was but a flimsy subterfuge, offered for the purpose of excusing appellant for his failure to account to the owner for said property. These matters were before the jury and were for their determination. They seem to have settled all conflicts in the evidence against appellant's contention, and we find ourselves unable to conclude the testimony of appellant's- taking and appropriation of the notes to be so unsatisfactory as to not support the verdict.
Finding no error in the record, an affirmance will be ordered.
<§sni"or other cases see same topic and KEV-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes