## Facts

- Samuel Stephens owned a silver watch valued at $2.50.
- Stephens deposited the watch with William H. Pate for repairs.
- Pate held the watch in his lawful possession as security for the repairs performed.
- The indictment alleged that on September 13, 1868, Stephens fraudulently took the watch from Pate’s possession without Pate’s consent.
- The alleged intent was to deprive Pate of the value of the repairs by repossessing the watch and appropriating it to Stephens’s own use.

## Issues

1. Whether an indictment sufficiently charges theft when it alleges that the defendant, though the title owner, fraudulently took the property from the rightful possession of a bailee holding it as security for repairs, with intent to deprive the bailee of the value of those repairs.
2. Whether the indictment must separately allege the value of the repairs to state an offense.
3. Whether the indictment was defective for uncertainty or duplicity.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the order quashing the indictment and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held the indictment sufficiently alleged theft under the governing statute covering “fraudulent taking.”
- The court rejected the claimed defects, concluding the indictment clearly alleged a single theft offense.

## Legal Principles

- Theft may be charged where the title owner fraudulently takes his own property from another who has lawful possession and a protected right to retain it as security for work and labor.
- In this type of theft, a “general charge” is sufficient if it alleges time and place, the property and its value, lawful possession in a bailee as security for repairs, a nonconsensual fraudulent taking, and intent to deprive the bailee of the value of the repairs.
- The value of the repairs need not be alleged; repairs imply value, and repairs themselves are not the direct subject of theft but relate to the bailee’s possessory security interest.
- An indictment is not uncertain or duplicitous where it distinctly alleges the defendant’s fraudulent taking of property from the rightful possession of another with the requisite intent.

## Conclusion

The court held that Texas theft law permits prosecution when an owner fraudulently repossesses his own chattel from a repairman-bailee who holds it as security, and it ruled the indictment adequate without separately pleading the value of the repairs.


State v. Stephens, 32 Tex. 155 (1869)