Ashlock v. State 3 Tex. L. R. 59

ASHLOCK vs. THE STATE.

Appeal from Collin county.

Assistant Attorney General Burts, for the State.

Theft — Venue.—That the stolen animal was seen on its accustomed range in 0. county one week before it was traced to the city of 1). was a showing sufficient to establish the venue in C. county.

Practice — Evidence.—A leading question is one which suggests the desired answer. “Did K, and R. tell you they saw the mare in I).?” is uot a leading question.

Same. — It was proper as showing bias to permit the State to prove by the defendant’s witnesses that they went before the grand jury at the instance of the defendant.

Same — Charge of the Court — The court, instead of charging that the taking, to constitute theft, must have been fraudulent if' the “defendant took the mare with intent,’’ etc. Objection not tenable as against a charge though good against an indictment.

Same — Reasonable Doubt. — It is not required that the doctrine of reasonable doubt be specially charged with reference to every is*60sue developed by the evidence. It is sufficient if it be charged generally with reference to the whole case.

Same.- — -Where the State has disproved the statement of the defendant concerning his connection with the stolen property, made when his possession was first challenged it is not called upon to disprove his subsequent statements with reference thereto.