
    
      Tom Landreth v. The State.
    No. 2869.
    Decided May 20, 1908.
    Theft—Finding Property—Intent.
    Where upon trial for theft the evidence showed that the defendant found the property alleged to have been stolen and made no effort to conceal it, and there was no design to steal at the time on his part the same was insufficient to convict.
    Appeal from the County Court of Runnells. Tried below before the Hon. B. B. Stone.
    Appeal from a conviction of theft under the value of $50; penalty, a fine of $35 and thirty days confinement in the county jail.
    The opinion states the case.
    
      R. B. Truly, for appellant.
    Swink v. State, 33 Texas Crim. Rep., 530.
    
      F. J. McCord, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.
   BROOKS, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of theft of property under the value of $50, and his punishment assessed at a fine of $35 and thirty days confinement in the county jail.

The only question we deem necessary to discuss is the sufficiency of the evidence. We do not think the same supports the verdict. It is undisputed that appellant found the property alleged to have been stolen, and made no effort to conceal same. This would not constitute theft under the laws of this State, there being no evidence that he formed the design to steal the property at the time he found it. Various witnesses testify to facts indicating that appellant did find the property, and we do not think the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict.

The judgment is, therefore, reversed and the cause is remanded.

Reversed and remanded.  