Case Name: F. B. Martin v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1923-05-16
Citations: 95 Tex. Crim. 401
Docket Number: No. 7196
Parties: F. B. Martin v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 95
Pages: 401–405

Head Matter:
F. B. Martin v. The State.
No. 7196.
Decided May 16, 1923.
Rehearing denied October 17, 1923.
1. —Theft—Evidence—Notes Collected — Money not Accounted for.
Upon trial of theft of two notes of the alleged value of $500 each, there was no error in permitting the owner of the alleged stolen notes to testify that the defendant had collected the money called for by said notes and had not accounted for same to said owner.
2. —Same—Sufficiency of the Evidence.
Where, upon trial of theft of two notes of the alleged value of $500 each, the evidence supported the conviction, there is no reversible error.
3. —Same—Rehearing—Indictment—Descriptive Averments — Surplusage.
Where, upon trial of theft, it was obvious from the face of the indictment that it alleged the theft of two notes of even date of equal amount with the same make-up and the same payee, and if as to one of the notes the indictment was incomplete that averment might be treated as surplusage, there was no reversible error.
4. — Same—Continuance—Affidavit—Practice on Appeal.
There exists in this court no authority to consider an affidavit, filed several months after the record was filed in this court, alleging newly discovered evidence. Following McBride v. State, 246 S. W. Rep., 394.
Appeal from the District Court of Gregg. Tried below before the Honorable P. 0. Beard.
Appeal from a conviction of theft; penalty, five years imprisonment in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case.
J. N. Campbell, for appellant.
W. A. Keeling, Assistant Attorney General, and C. L. Stone, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, Judge.
— 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 five hundred dollars 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 can not 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 ap parently 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 one thousand dollars due thereon, and that he sent it to a man in Oklahoma by the name of Jackstone for some kind of investment or safe-keeping for the alleged owner. He claimed that he had sent to the owner an order upon Jackstone for the money. Evidently the contention of the State was that the claim of appellant that he sent the money of said owner to Jackstone and that Jackstone 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 that 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.
Affirmed.