Case Name: SESSIONS v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1925-04-15
Citations: 274 S.W. 580
Docket Number: No. 8874
Parties: SESSIONS v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 274
Pages: 580–582

Head Matter:
SESSIONS v. STATE.
(No. 8874.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
April 15, 1925.
Rehearing Denied June 24,1925.)
1. Larceny (®=3|0 — Lost property in constructive possession of real owner.
Lost property stolen is in constructive possession of real owner.
2. Larceny <3=^3 (2) — Finder of lost property must have intended to steal it to be guilty of theft.
Finder of lost property, to be guilty of theft, must have intended to steal it at time of taking.
3. Criminal law <§=>1036(8) — Conviction supported by any evidence of intent to steal lost property .affirmed, in absence of request for charge more specifically pointing out necessity of proving intent.
In absence of request for charge more specifically directing jury’s attention to necessity of proving intent to steal lost property at time of taking, conviction of theft, supported by any evidence of such intent, must be affirmed.
On Motion for Rehearing.
4. Larceny <§=>10 — Taking of lost property on finding it, with intent to defraud owner and appropriate it to finder’s use, is theft.
Under Pen. Code 1911, art. 1329, washerwoman taking possession of money, on finding it in clothes received for washing, with intent to defraud owner and appropriate it to finder’s use, is guilty of theft, but, in abs.ence' of such intent when money was discovered and taken, no subsequent intent to steal it would make the taking theft.
5. Larceny <§=>55 — Conviction of theft of money found by defendant held sustained by evidence.
Evidence held sufficient to sustain conviction of washerwoman for theft of money found by her in clothes received for washing.
6. Criminal law <§=5|038(I) — Submission of theft ease on general charge, not embracing theft of lost property, held not reversible error.
Submission of theft case on charge, applicable to theft generally, and not embracing theft of lost property, held not reversible error, in absence of objection to charge or request for special charges.
7. Larceny <§=>32 (3) — Ownership of stolen community property, lost by wife, held properly alleged in husband.
Ownership of stolen community property, of which wife unwittingly surrendered actual possession to defendant, without latter’s knowledge until subsequent discovery thereof, held properly alleged in husband, who was in constructive possession.
Appeal from District Court, Panola County; Chas. L. Brachfield, Judge.
Mamie Sessions was convicted of theft and appeals.
Affirmed.
Long & Strong, of Carthage, and Walter C. Woodward, of Coleman, .for appellant.
' Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Ass’t State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
MORROW, P. J.
The offense is theft; punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for a period of two years.
According to the testimony of Lake, after collecting $140 in money, he handed it to his wife with the request that she call his attention to it on his first trip to town so that he might take the money with him and deposit it in the bank. She placed the money in a little sack and pinned it to her dress, where she kept it for a week or more. The appellant, a negro woman, did not live at the home of Lake, but came there and did the washing for his family. She came to his home upon a oertain day, took the soiled clothes to another place, and washed them. During the day, Mrs. Lake missed' the money. She went immediately -to the field where her husband was working and told him about it. He went to the appellant and taxed her with the taking of the money. After calling upon him to describe it, appellant conducted him to the bed in her house, where she revealed the money under the cover. In her testimony the appellant explained the posses sion of the money with the statement that just as she had completed the washing, she noticed a sack containing money floating on the water in the tub and- took it home with her.
The indictment was found under article 1329 of the Penal Code, and charged the taking from W. C. Lake without his consent. Upon this theory the jury was instructed in the charge of the court, against which there were directed no objections.
It is insisted, however, that the conviction should not stand, for the reason that the ownership of the money was not in Lake but in his wife, that it was in her possession, and that the care, control, and management of it was in her.
Reference is made by the appellant's counsel to many cases discussing the subject of ownership in cases of theft, notably the early ease of Frazier v. State, 18 Tex. App. 434, in which the announcement is definitely made that by ownership in cases of theft, as referred to in the statute, is meant the person who has possession of the property as well as its care, control, and management. The principles, however, controlling in the present ease are those which have application to theft of property of the husband and wife. Without going into a discussion of the reasoning upon which the decisions are founded, from the precedents in this state the rule is deduced that, where the stolen property is owned by the husband arid wife jointly as community property, and where the spouses are living together, the ownership should be laid in the husband. Wilson v. State, 3 Tex. App. 209; Merriweather v. State, 33 Tex. 790; Lucas v. State, 36 Tex. Cr. R. 397, 37 S. W. 427; Jones v. State, 47 Tex. Cr. R. 126, 80 S. W. 530; Branch's Ann. Tex. P. C. § 2438, subd. 3. See, also, Greenwood v. State, 84 Tex. Cr. R. 548, 208 S. W. 662; Peoples v. State, 90 Tex. Cr. R. 236, 234 S. W. 394.
In exceptional cases, as where the spouses are not living together, or where the husband is absent, it has been, held permissible to lay the ownership in the wife. See Miles v. State, 51 Tex. Cr. R. 587, 103 S. W. 854; Lane v. State, 69 Tex. Cr. R. 65, 152 S. W. 897; Childress v. State, 92 Tex. Cr. R. 215, 241 S. W. 1029.
The suggestion is made in the brief that the circumstances under which the property came into the possession of the appellant bring it within the rule applicable to the theft of lost property. Even if this be conceded, we fail to perceive its advantage to the' accused in the present case. So far as the matter of ownership is involved, that of lost property is in the constructive possession of the real owner. Martin v. State, 44 Tex. Cr. R. 538, 72 S. W. 386; Greenwood v. State, 84 Tex. Cr. R. 548, 208 S. W. 662. As applied to the present case, the real ownership was in W. C. Lake and his wife, and the proper averment'was to lay the ownership in W. C. Lake. Conceding the property to be lost property, the finder of it, in order to be guilty of theft, must at the time of the taking have had the intent to steal it.' See Reed v. State, 8 Tex. App. 42, 34 Am. Rep. 732, and numerous other cases collated in Branch's Ann. Tex. P. C., § 2499. In the present case, the facts are not wanting to support such a conclusion, and there was no request for a charge bringing to the attention of the jury more specifically the necessity of proof of such intent.
We find no error, and the judgment is affirmed.
<g^For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes