Case Name: Alex. Sands v. The State
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1891-12-22
Citations: 30 Tex. Ct. App. 578
Docket Number: No. 3764
Parties: Alex. Sands v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Court of Appeals Reports
Volume: 30
Pages: 578–581

Head Matter:
Alex. Sands v. The State.
No. 3764.
Decided December 22.
1. Recognizance—Receiving and Concealing Stolen Property.—Where a recognizance recited that appellant stands charged “with the offense of receiving and concealing stolen property of the value of $10, knowing the same to have been stolen, and who has been convicted of said offense,” etc., held, that such recognizance is not defective because the word “stolen” is therein used instead of the statutory words, “acquired in such manner as that the acquisition comes within the meaning of the term ‘theft,’ ” which words are used in article 743 of the Penal Code, defining the offense of receiving and concealing stolen property. Article 739 of the Penal Code provides, that “the words steal or stolen, when used in this code with reference to the acquisition of property, include property acquired by theft.” While, however, such a recital is good in a recognizance, it would not be sufficient in an indictment for receiving and concealing stolen property.
2. Allegata and Probata—Variance.—Where on a trial for receiving and concealing stolen property it was shown that the property stolen was a live hog, which was afterward killed and cut up, and that defendant received and concealed the pork into which it had been converted, held, no variance between the allegation and proof.
3. Confessions Made Under Arrest Admissible, when. — Confessions made under arrest, even though the accused be not warned as to the consequences, are admissible as evidence under provision of article 570 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, where “in connection with such confessions he makes statements of facts and circumstances that are found to be true which conduce to establish his guilt, such as the finding of secreted or stolen property.”
4. Theft—Value—Proof of, when Necessary.—Property must have some specific value to be the subject of theft; and whenever the value of the property characterizes the crime and its degree of punishment, the value must not only be alleged but proved.
Appeal from the County Court of Harrison. Tried below before Hon. A. H. Cooper, County Judge.
Appellant was prosecuted and convicted under an information charging him with fraudulently receiving and concealing one hundred pounds of pork, cut up into small pieces, of the value of $10, his punishment being assessed at a fine of $25 and imprisonment of five days in the county jail. The evidence shows that the hog was stolen by Tom Smith and George Brewster; and the hog and parties who stole him were tracked to one Bill Brewster’s, where the hair, entrails, and a portion of the meat were found. Circumstances that transpired there led to the arrest of Alexander Sands, this appellant, who carried the parties about a mile from Bill Brewster’s house and pointed to the place where he said the meat was. Parties went to the place pointed out by the appellant, and found the meat in a gulley, covered with a sack, there being about one hundred pounds of the meat.
Pope, Wilson & Lane, for appellant.
R. H. Harrison, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

Opinion:
ON MOTION FOR A BEHEADING.
HURT, Judge.
At a former day of this term the appeal was dismissed. A rehearing is now asked, and after a careful consideration of the question involved, we are of the opinion that the motion ought to be granted.
The recognizance recites that appellant stands charged in the County Court "with the offense of receiving and concealing stolen property of the value of $10, knowing the same to have been stolen, and who has been convicted of said offense," etc. The offense here attempted to be described is that denounced in article 743 of our Penal Code, which reads as follows: "If any person shall receive or conceal property which has been acquired by another in such manner as that the acquisition comes within the meaning of the term 'theft/ knowing the same to have been so acquired, he shall be punished," etc.
The defect supposed to exist in the recognizance is, that the word "stolen" is used instead of the statutory words "acquired in such manner as that the acquisition comes within the meaning of the term 'theft.' " This objection is met by the provision of article 739 of the Penal Code, and which article is embraced in the same chapter of the code that contains article 743, which relates to the subject of "theft in general."
By article 739 it is provided, that "the word 'steal' or 'stolen, ' when used in this code in reference to the acquisition of property, includes property acquired by theft." Thus we have a fixed, definite meaning to the word "stolen;" and giving to it this meaning, we are of opinion that the offense is sufficiently set forth and described in the recognizance. We do not wish to be understood as holding the recitation of the offense in said recognizance would be a sufficient averment of the offense in an indictment charging the offense of acquiring and concealing stolen property.
. Motion for rehearing granted.
Judges all present and concurring.