Revised Edition of White's Penal Code, Embracing All Penal Legislation Down to and Including the Acts of the Legislature of 1915, Annotated in Cyclopedic Style to Include the Latest Criminal Reports, and Southwestern Reporter, Volume 2

Revised Edition of White's Penal Code, Embracing All Penal Legislation Down to and Including the Acts of the Legislature of 1915, Annotated in Cyclopedic Style to Include the Latest Criminal Reports, and Southwestern Reporter, Volume 2

By (author) 

List price: US$71.00

Currently unavailable

Add to wishlist

AbeBooks may have this title (opens in new window).

Try AbeBooks

Description

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1916 edition. Excerpt: ...(9 S. W. 57). (d) Possession under suficient. It is sufiicient to prove that the alleged owner was in possession of the animal in good faith under a. bill duly recorded. Proof of title in the owner-vendor is not necessary. Grant v. St., 3 T. Cr. 1. (e) Miscellany. Independent. Ownership of a stolen animal may be proven independent of a bill of sale. Dodd v. St., 10 T. Cr. 370. Recorded in wrong book. It is not a valid objection to a bill of sale that it was recorded in the wrong book. Britt v. St., 21 T. Cr. 215 (17 S. VV. 255). Practice. As to practice by prosecuting ofiiccrs to the introduction by defendant of a bill of sale. Portell vf se, 43 Tex. 433; Blankenship v. St., 5 T. Cr. 21s. E. Consent, want of. See title under Burden of proof. brand--unauthorized and unrecorded. (a) Bill of sale and An unauthorized bill of sale or an unre Title xvn, Chap. 9. Art. s11, notes am-er. corded brand, though inadmissible as proof of title, may be competent evidence to rebut a criminal intent. Long v. St., 1 T. Cr. 466. See Shoefercater v. St., 5 T. O." 207; Blankenship v. St., 5 T. Cr. 218; Dreyer v. St., ll T. Q'. 631. (b) Declaration. The non-consent of the owner cannot be proven by his declarations to third parties. West v. St., 32 Tex. 651. Nor can the want of consent be established by the testimony of third parties in the absence of the owner that an altercation between the clerk and the accused took place at the time that the property is alleged to have been stolen. Davis v. St., 37 Tex. 227. (c) Circumstantial evidence. But the want of consent of the owner may be proved by circumstantial evidence. Wilson v. St., 4.3 Tex. 76; Kemp v. St., 38 Tex. 110; 1lc1lahon v. St., 1 T. Cr. 102; Welsh v. St., 3 T. Or. 422; Foster v. St., 4 T....show more

Product details

  • Paperback | 576 pages
  • 189 x 246 x 30mm | 1,016g
  • Rarebooksclub.com
  • United States
  • English
  • black & white illustrations
  • 1236763378
  • 9781236763372