
    Dave Kelley v. The State.
    No. 4258.
    Decided June 19, 1909.
    Theft—Possession—Ownership.
    Upon trial for theft where the possession and ownership of the alleged stolen property was alleged in one person and the proof showed that it was actually owned by another, there was no variance; the person alleged in the indictment having the actual care, control and management of said property.
    Appeal from the County Court of Dallas County at Law. Tried below before the Hon. W. M. Holland.
    Appeal from a conviction of misdemeanor theft; penalty, ninety days confinement in the county jail, v
    The opinion states the case.
    
      No brief on file for appellant.
    
      F. J. McCord, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.
   BROOKS, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of theft, and his punishment assessed at ninety days imprisonment in the county jail.

Appellant insists that the information and complaint are defective in this: Same charged the theft of the alleged stolen property to have been made from the possession of Clarence D. Pratt, while the proof shows that said stolen property, if stolen at all, was owned by the Lincoln Paint and Color Company. The evidence shows that said Pratt had the control, care and management of the property of the company. The evidence supports the verdict, and the proof and allegation entirely correspond. These are the only questions raised in the record.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.  