Case ID: sw2d_45/html/0615-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "MORROW P. J. LATTIMORE, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

MURPHY v. STATE.
    No. 14551.
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Nov. 25, 1931.
    Rehearing Denied Feb. 17, 1932.
    Ashworth, Crisp & Ashworth, of Kaufman, for appellant.
    
      Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.
   MORROW P. J.

The offense is theft; penalty assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for four years.

The stolen property consisted of four sets of harness. The injured party testified that the value of the harness was $63.90. He qualified as to knowledge of the value. There was an extended cross-examination of the witness, upon which is based the contention that the evidence did not prove the value of the stolen property to exceed $50, and that ⅛⅜ court should not have instructed the jury upon felony theft.

The testimony is quite sufficient to sustain the action of the court and to support the terdict of the jury.

The .judgment is affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

LATTIMORE, J.

The indictment charged theft of harness of the value of $63.90 and certain bushels of oats of the value of $19.60. The proof showed the theft of all of said property. The trial court saw fit to submit the case in his charge mentioning only the harness. Appellant complains in his motion for ‘ rehearing that we erred in holding the testimony sufficient to establish the value of the harness as more than $50. The owner of said harness testified that the market value of said harness at the time it was taken was $63.90. Appellant is in no position to complain at the method or manner of proving the value of said harness. He made no objection to the testimony of said owner. He took no bill of exception showing -complaint of the method or manner of such proof. In the absence of a bill of exception showing that objection was made in the trial court, such complaint is of no avail here. Ramon v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 98 S. W. 872; Thomas v. State, 85 Tex. Cr. R. 246, 211 S. W. 453; Cunningham v. State, 90 Tex. Cr. R. 500, 236 S. W. 90.

The motion for rehearing will be overruled.