Revised Edition of White's Penal Code, Embracing All Penal Legislation Down to and Including the Acts of the Legislature of 1915, Annotated in ... Reports, and Southwestern Reporter, Volume 2 Buy on Amazon
Facebook LinkedIn

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

Author Texas
Publisher RareBooksClub.com
71.00 USD

Usually ships in 24 hours

Book Details
Author(s) Texas
Publisher RareBooksClub.com
ISBN / ASIN 1236763378
ISBN-13 9781236763372
Availability Usually ships in 24 hours
Sales Rank #99,999,999
Marketplace United States 🇺🇸
Ratings & Reviews No reviews yet — be the first!

No reviews yet.

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....
Donate to EbookNetworking
No Prev
No Next