
    MARTINEZ v. STATE.
    (No. 4194.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Oct. 18, 1916.)
    Larceny <&wkey;28(l) — Indictment — Sufficiency.
    An indictment for theft, which alleges that defendant and codefendant did “unlawfully take and steal from and out of the possession of, and of the property of, and without the consent of, Tom Peoples,” property described, with intent to deprive “said owner of the value thereof and to appropriate same to the use and benefit of” defendant and codefendant, is sufficient as against a motion to quash, on the grounds that it charges no offense and is'vague and uncertain and fails to charge that the property was taken from the possession of Tom Peoples or any other person.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Larceny, Cent. Dig. §§ 58, 99, 101; Dec. Dig. &wkey;28(l)J
    Appeal from District Court, Kleberg County; W. B. Hopkins, Judge.
    Ygnacio Martinez was convicted of theft, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    C. C. McDonald, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PRENDERGAST, P. J.

Appellant was convicted of the theft of personal property of more than the value of $50, and assessed the lowest punishment.

He was jointly indicted with Górgonio Vil-lareal. The charging part of the indictment is that on or about June 13, 1914, in said state and county, “Ygnacio Martinez and Gorgonio Villareal did then and there unlawfully take and steal from and out of the possession of, and of the property of, and without the consent of, Tom Peoples, one certain buggy of the value of $75.00, with intent to deprive said owner of the value thereof and to appropriate same to the use and benefit Of them, the said Ygnacio Martinez and Gor-gonio Villareal.” Appellant moved to quash the indictment on the grounds: (1) That it charged no offense. (2) It was vague, uncertain, and fails to charge any offense. (3) It fails to charge that said property was taken from the possession of the prosecuting witness, Tom Peoples, or any other person. The court properly overruled appellant’s objection to this indictment. We think it is clearly sufficient.

There are no bills of exceptions and no statement of facts in tbe record, and no other questions raised that can be considered.

The judgment is affirmed.  