Case Name: Will Ward v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1917-10-17
Citations: 82 Tex. Crim. 133
Docket Number: No. 4605
Parties: Will Ward v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 82
Pages: 133–136

Head Matter:
Will Ward v. The State.
No. 4605.
Decided October 17, 1917.
Rehearing' denied November 7, 1917.
1. —Theft—Circumstantial Evidence—Sufficiency of the Evidence.
Where, upon the trial of theft of property under the value of $50, the'evidence although circumstantial was sufficient to sustain the conviction, there was no reversible error.-
2. —Same—Special Owner—Allegation—Proof.
Where, upon trial of misdemeanor theft, the evidence was sufficient to show that the alleged party from whom the property was taken had exclusive control of the same and care and management- thereof to make him the s-pecial owner, the allegation of ownership was properly allegéd and proved.
3. —Same—Statement in Opinion—Motion for Rehearing—Ownership— Practice on Appeal.
Where defendant in bis motion for rehearing in this court contended that this court passed the cate off on the sufficiency of the evidence and that such is not his contention, but the record clearly raises the sufficiency of the evidence as to the ownership alleged and proved, there was no reversible error.
Appeal from the • County Court of Balls. Tried below before tho Hon. B. S. Heifer.
Appeal from a conviction of misdemeanor theft; penalty, imprisonment in the county jail for thirty days and a fine of ten dollars.
The opinion states the case.
W. E. Rogers, for appellant.
On question of special ownership: Russell v. State, 55 Texas Crim. Rep., 330, 116 S. W. Rep., 573; Bryan v. State, 54 Texas Crim. Rep., 59, 111 S. W. Rep., 1025; Crouch v. State, 52 Texas Crim. Rep., 460, 107 S. W. Rep., 839; Graves v. State, 42 S. W. Rep., 300; Odell v. State, 44 Texas Crim. Rep., 307.
E. B. Hendricks, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.
Cited 2 Branch’s Ann. Penal Code, p. 1322.

Opinion:
DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.
Appellant was convicted of theft of property under the value of $50.
The case is one of circumstantial evidence, but under the facts we are of opinion that the State sufficiently made its case. In order to review appellant's contention it may be necessary to state some of the evidence. This shows that the alleged owner had a brother who was living in Port Worth. He had written to the alleged owner to send his suitcase and a suit of clothes to him at Port Worth. It seems the suitcase and the suit of clothes were at the residence of the father and mother of the alleged owner. They brought the clothes and suitcase to the town of Marlin aniel turned them over to the alleged owner for the purpose of being shipped or conveyed to the brother at Port Worth. The alleged owner received the suitcase which contained the suit of clothes, and expected to send it to Port Worth by a certain woman who was going on the train, but by some means he did not find her and concluded to send it by express. Before taking it to the express office for shipment he left it in a saloon with the expectation of returning at the proper time to get it for the purpose of sending it to Port Worth. When he went for the suitcase it had been taken. This is enough of the testimony to illustrate the question mainly relied upon by appellant, towit: that the alleged owner was not such an owner under the law as justified the indictment alleging ownership in him.
We are of the opinion that he was sufficiently the owner within the contemplation of the statute to authorize the allegation of ownership The father and mother had turned it over to him for the purpose of its being shipped. He had exclusive control of it, and care and management, sufficiently so at least to make him the special owner. The objections to the testimony in this respect as well as to the charges given and refused are not well taken. We are of opinion that the court was correct in holding the indictment sufficiently alleged the ownership. This seems to be the main contention of appellant, and we are of opinion that it is not well taken.
The judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.