## Facts

- F. M. Legler was prosecuted in Harris County, Texas for theft over $50 under a theft-by-false-pretext theory involving $570.
- On January 9, 1923, Mr. Locke gave Legler $570 to obtain an oil lease.
- Locke testified Legler represented the lease would arrive from Oklahoma that day or was in Houston with a draft attached, and that the lease would be transferred to Locke the next morning.
- On cross-examination, Locke stated he paid the $570 “for the lease,” did not expect the money back, and expected to receive the lease instead.
- Legler did not meet Locke the next morning, never delivered or transferred the lease, and did not return the money.
- The trial court instructed the jury on theft by false pretext and Legler was convicted and sentenced to two years’ imprisonment.

## Issues

1. Whether a defendant can be convicted of theft by false pretext when the complainant intended to part with both title and possession of the money as the purchase price for an oil lease.

## Decision

- The Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas reversed the conviction and remanded.
- The court held the evidence did not establish theft by false pretext because Locke intended to transfer both title and possession of the $570 in exchange for the lease.
- On these facts, Legler could not be convicted of theft as charged.

## Legal Principles

- Theft by false pretext requires that the owner, though induced by deception, intend to part with possession but not title to the property.
- When the owner intends to transfer both title and possession as part of a sale or exchange, the conduct is not theft by false pretext; the appropriate charge is swindling (or an equivalent fraud offense).
- The complainant’s intent at the moment of transfer is decisive in distinguishing theft by false pretext from other fraud-based offenses.

## Conclusion

Because Locke’s testimony showed he paid the $570 as a purchase price and did not expect its return, the transfer reflected an intent to part with title and possession, defeating a theft-by-false-pretext theory; the conviction was therefore reversed and the case remanded.


Legler v. State, 262 S.W. 478 (Tex. Crim. App. 1924)