Purchase of this book includes free trial access to www.million-books.com where you can read more than a million books for free. This is an OCR edition with typos. Excerpt from book: Ramon Martinez v. The State. No. 897. Decided January 18, 1911. 1.?Theft of Hog?Circumstantial Evidence?Charge of Court. Where, upon trial of theft of a hog, there was positive proof by an eyewitness that defendant took the hog, and the testimony of the accomplice vv;is corroborated by the finding of the fruits of the crime, it was not necessary to charge on circumstantial evidence. 2.?Same?Charge of Court?Accomplice Testimony. Where, upon trial of theft of a hog, the charge of the court on accomplice testimony followed approved precedent, there was no error. 3.?Same?Sufficiency of the Evidence. Where, upon trial of theft of a hog, the evidence sustained the conviction, the same will not be disturbed. Appeal from the District Court of Dimmit. Tried below before the Honorable J. F. Mullally. Appeal from a conviction of theft of a hog; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case. No brief on file for appellant. C. E. Lane, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State. HARPER, Judge.?The appellant in this case was indicted, tried, convicted and sentenced to a term of two years in the penitentiary, in the District Court of Dimmit County, being charged with the theft of a hog. 1. The appellant complains that the court erred in not giving in charge the law controlling circumstantial evidence. There was positive proof by an eyewitness that appellant took the hog. Other witnesses swore he brought fresh hog meat to the camp. It is true the court held all these witnesses were accomplices, but they were corroborated by the head and other parts of the hog being found at the place where one of the witnesses stated he had helped to conceal it, and by other facts. Under this state of case, it is not necessary to give suc...