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: 416
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
416 LAMKIN V. THE STATE. [Term of
Opinion of the Court.
was unknown to the grand jury, of the value of one dollar
each, and that they were taken fiom the possession of Hugh
W. Munroe and Z. B. Hagins, holding possession for the
owner, Barry G. Anderson, and from a house in the town of
Gonzales, a description and the owner of which was unknown
to the grand jurors.
The defendant being convicted by the jury, moved in arrest
of judgment, assigning as causes:
First. Because the indictment does not describe the offense
with sufficient certainty in this: it does not describe the house
from which the two shoes are alleged to have been stolen, nor
who occupied the house. It does not show that the house was
not vacant or occupied by defendant himself.
Second. The indictment does not describe the shoes, nor
allege that they are personal property.
fThird. It does not charge that the shoes were taken from the
possession of any one holding them for the owner.
Fourth. The indictment does not charge any offense in
plain and intelligible words, but is vague, uncertain, and defective.
The terms used to designate the property stolen should be
such as to show that the thing was a subject of larceny, and to
enable the jury to decide that the property proven to have been
stolen is the same as that described in the indictment. To follow
the usual form of an indictment in cases like the present,
the articles would be described as two pairs of shoes. Descriptions,
however, such as the following, have been held as sufficient:
One bolt of domestic;" "One sheep;" "' A parcel of
oats;" " One hide;" " A hamn." These examples would support
the present indictment, though such forms are not to be
The name of the owner of the house, or who occupied it, or
some description of the building, should have been averred in
the indictment. On this ground the motion in arrest of the
judgment should have been sustained. It was not sufficient to
state that the house was in the town of Gonzales. If the name
Here’s what’s next.
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
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., book, 1881; St. Louis, Mo.. (texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth28531/m1/424/: accessed April 19, 2018), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, texashistory.unt.edu; .