Cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of Texas, during the latter part of the Tyler term, 1874, and the first part of the Galveston term, 1875. Volume 42. Page: 415

1875.] LAMKIN V. THE STATE. 415
Opinion of the Court.
plaintiffs claim above the sum admitted to have been paid.
His statement to defendants' cashier that the defendants owed
him five hundred dollars more than he had received, had not
been called in question by defendants, and should have been
excluded on the direct examination. (1 Starkie's Evidence,
186, 187; 1 Greenleaf's Evidence, 469; Deshon v. Merchants'
Ins. Co., 11 Met., 209. Commonwealth v. Wilson, 1 Gray,
340; Boston and Worcester R. R. Co. v. Dana, 1 Gray, 103.)
For the error in admitting improper evidence, the judgment
is reversed and the cause remanded.
Reversed and remanded.
OLIVER LAMRKI V. THE STATE.
INDICTMENT-THEFT FROM A HOUSE. In an indictment for theft from a
house the house should be described, by mentioning its owner, its occupant,
or some other description by which it could be identified.
APPEAL from Gonzales. Tried below before the Hon. John
P. White.
3ifller & Sayers, for appellant, cited Jordt v. The State,
31 Texas, 571; Banks v. The State, 28 Texas, 647; Alexander
v. The State, 29 Texas, 495; Rex v. Thompson, 1 Leach (4th
ed.), 338; 2 East's Pleas of the Crown, 644; Commonwealth
v. Hartnett, 3 Gray, 450; The State v. Chambers, 6 Ala., 855;
United States v. Pearce, 2 McLean, 14; Bump v. Commonwealth,
8 Met., 533; The State v. Cheatwood, 2 Hill, S. C. R.,
459; Murphy v. The State, 1 Indiana, 366; Rex v. Stover, 1
Leach (4th ed.), 334.
Kittrell, for the State.
REEVES, J.-The indictment charges the appellant with the
theft of " two shoes," alleging that a description of the shoes