1875.] EPPERSON v. THE STATE. 79
Opinion of the court.
will find the defendant not guilty," which the court r,fused
The alleged error in the charge of the court, and the refusal
to give the charge asked, were the grounds set forth
in the motion for new trial, after the jury had returned a
verdict of guilty, which motion was overruled,
The charge of the court in effect instructed the jury
what facis were necessary to give to Henry Garrison a
special property in the gun, and having done so, he might
well refuse to give the charge asked, which would only
have tended to confuse the jury as it was presented.
It is well established that property may be alleged in an
indictment to belong to one who has a special property in
it at the time it is stolen. (Langford v. The State, 8 Tex.,
116; 3 Greenl. Ev., § 161.)
LEW EPPERSON V. THE STATE.
INDICTMAENT-FRAUDULENT REPREESENTATIONS.-An indictment for
obtaining property by fraudulent representations should charge in
terms that the property was acquired by means of the fraudulent
representations. It is not sufficient to allege that the owner was
swindled out of value of the property by means of the fraudulent
APPEAL from Red River. Tried below before the Hon.
John C. Easton.
Clark Todd, for appellant.
George Clark, Attorney General, for the State.
ROBERTS, CHIEP JUSTICE.--The defendant being convicted
under an indictment for the acquisition of property
by a fraudulent representation, moved in arrest of judg
Texas. Supreme Court. 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.. St. Louis, Mo.. The Portal to Texas History. http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth28531/. Accessed May 30, 2015.