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: 701

INDEX. 701
TAXES AND TAX SALES-Continued.
26. Taxes levied upon trades and occupations are not prohibited by
the Constitution. Id.
THEFT.
INDICTMENT, 1.
1. In an indictment for theft, the stolen property may be alleged in
the indictment to belong to one who had but a special property in it
at the time it was stolen. Moseley v. The State, 78.
2. When a pocket-book, in the pocket of its owner, is seized by the
hand of one without the knowledge or consent of the owner, and drawn
half way out of the pocket, when the party seizing it, on being detected,
relinquishes his hold upon it : eld, on trial, for theft from the person
1st. That there was a sufficient taking away from the person.
2d. That there was a sufficient possession of the pocket-book, if the
same was taken with felonious intent, to constitute the offense
of theft from the person, under Article 762 of the Code.
Flynn v. The State, 321.
8. Asportatiou is not necessary to be alleged or proved in order to a
conviction for theft. Austin v. The State, 345.
4. It is not necessary to allege that the taking in theft was " felo.
nious," the word "fraudulently" is equivalent to "feloniously." Id.
5. Theft from a house by one having a right to enter the building
by virtue of his employment as a domestic servant, is not punishable
under Article 764 of the Penal Code, but only as simple theft. Taylor
v. The State, 387.
6. A fraudulent taking of the property of another embraces the idea
that the taker knew that it was not his own, and also that it was done
to deprive the true owner of its value. Hence, a taking under a claim
of ownership when the evidence shows reason to believe the claim was
well founded, will not authorize a conviction of theft. Smith v. The
State, 444.
7. On the trial of one charged with the theft of an animal, the
jury were permitted by the court to leave the court-room during the
trial, and inspect for themselves the animal alleged to have been stolen,
with a view of thus solving, in connection with the evidence detailed by
witnesses, the question of identity and ownership. No evidence was
detailed by any of them on their return into court as to what they dis
covered. Held, 1st, That there is no authority in this State for such a
mode of enlightening the minds of the jury as to the material facts of a
case which they have to try. 2d, That a verdict upon facts thus ascertained
would be a finding on facts known only to the jury-not publicly
developed on the trial-concerning which defendant had no opportunity
to cross-examine them as witnesses, upon which defendant or his counsel
had not been heard, and of which the judge had no information.
lb.