Case Name: Jack Flynn v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1904-06-23
Citations: 47 Tex. Crim. 26
Docket Number: No. 2837
Parties: Jack Flynn v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 47
Pages: 26–29

Head Matter:
Jack Flynn v. The State.
No. 2837.
Decided June 23, 1904.
1.—Indictment—Theft—Theft from Person.
Different offenses, such as theft and theft from the person, may be charged in the same indictment by way of separate and distinct counts.
Z.—Charge of the Court—Felony—Misdemeanor.
Where the evidence showed that prosecutor had $85 when he went into a house of ill fame, where he handed defendant different sums to buy. beer, who did not return the change and only had $5 when he came out of the house, and the court submitted the law both of felony and misdemeanor to the jury, a conviction for the theft of property over the value of $50 will not be disturbed.
ON REHEARING.
3. —Evidence—Theft—Pretext.
Where the evidence showed that defendant devised a pretext to induce the prosecutor to part with his money, it is theft.
4. —Same—Conversion Theft, When.
A conversion of property, where one obtains it for the purpose of appropriating it to bis own use is theft, regardless of any pretense.
5. —Continuous Act, One Theft.
Where the evidence showed appellant’s design to be to get prosecutor’s money under the pretext of changing it, and that he knew that prosecutor was drunk and that he had a considerable amount of money and defendant entered a house of ill fame with prosecutor and during the course of an hour or an hour and a half by successive orders for beer, induced prosecutor to hand him in all $80, which he appropriated, the same is a continuous act, as to constitute it one theft.
Appeal from the District Court of Lamar. Tried below before Hon. Ben' H. Benton.
Appeal from a conviction of theft of property over the value of $50; penalty, seven years imprisonment in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case.
J. G. Hodges and J. M. Long, for appellant.
Howard Martin, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.
On question of sufficiency of indictment: Greenwood v. State, 44 S. W. Rep., 177.

Opinion:
HENDERSON, Judge.
Appellant was convicted of the theft of property over the value of $50, and his punishment assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for a term of seven years; hence this appeal.
The court did not err in refusing to quash the indictment. The indictment was in two counts, one of which charged theft from the person, and the other theft of property over the value of $50. While they were different offenses, yet it was competent to charge them in distinct counts in the same indictment. Greenwood v. State, 44 S. W. Rep., 177.
We do not believe it was error for the court to refuse to submit to the jury the question as to whether Ed Holton was an accomplice. In our opinion, the testimony does not put him in that attitude. The court's charge as to accomplice testimony as applied to Jennie Fuller was not subject to the criticism of appellant's counsel. It was a proper charge.
The court submitted the question of a misdemeanor to the jury; and bsides the court gave the requested charge of appellant on the subject, and under the evidence we believe the jury very properly found that appellant was guilty of a felony; that is, that he took more than $50 from the prosecutor Moore at one time. The only witness' who speaks on this subject is Jennie Fuller. Other evidence shows that prosecutor must have gone into her house with $85 in currency. When prosecutor came out of the house he only had $5 in currency. She testifies to three occasions in which money was taken from the prosecutor by appellant. In the first she shows that $30 in bills were taken by appellant from prosecutor, and that he handed back to prosecutor a $20 bill. This left prosecutor with $75. She speaks of one other occasion in which bills were taken by appellant from prosecutor, but she was not definite as to the amount. She testifies to the last occasion in which only $5 was taken, but this $5 was handed back by appellant to prosecutor. This evidently left $70 or about that amount, certainly over $50, that must have been taken by appellant from prosecutor at one time. In our opinion the testimony is ample. The charge of the court was sufficient. The judgment is affirmed. Affirmed: