
    No. 5691.
    Floyd Ellison v. The State.
    Opinion delivered April 7, 1888.
    Theft—Evideítob.-t-To support a conviction for theft, unless it be for theft from, the person, or of a horse, mule, ass or cattle, it devolves upon the State to prove the value of the property stolen. The proof in this case is insufficient, because there "was no evidence adduced to support the allegation of value.
    Appeal from the County Court of Dallas. Tried below before the Hon. E. G. Bower, County Judge.
    The appellant in this case was convicted under an indictment which charged him with the theft of four bushels of com, the property of J. W. Bowlin, of the value of sixty cents per bushel. The penalty assessed against the appéllant was confinement in the county jail for the period of five days.
    None of the witnesses who were examined on the trial testified to the value of the alleged stolen property.
    
      Lauderdale <& Cullen, for the appellant.
    
      W. L. Davidson, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.
   Willson, Judge.

It is essential in all prosecutions for theft, except for theft from the person, and theft of a horse, mule, ass or cattle, to both allege and prove the value of the property stolen. In this case the conviction is for the theft of corn, and there is no proof whatever in the record in support of the allegation of value. Wherefore the conviction is not warranted by the evidence, and must be set aside. (Willson’s Texas Crim. Stats., sec. 1285.)

There are other questions presented in the record which we do not determine, because they are not likely to arise on another trial.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.  