Case ID: tex-crim_97/html/0489-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "LATTIMORE, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Sam Gammon v. The State.
    No. 8285.
    Decided May 28, 1924.
    1. —Receiving and Concealing Stolen Property — Sufficiency of the Evidence.
    Where, upon trial of receiving and concealing stolen property, the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction, there is no reversible error.
    2. —Same—Bill of Exceptions — Practice on Appeal.
    Where a bill of exceptions was in question and answer form, the same cannot be considered on appeal.
    3. —Same—Bill of Exceptions — Charge of Court.
    Where the bill of exceptions was taken to the entire charge of the court, the same is at variance with the rule requiring that exceptions be specific, and the same cannot be considered on appeal.
    
      Appeal from the District Court of Stephens. Tried below before the Honorable C. O. Hamlin.
    Appeal from a conviction of receiving and concealing stolen property ; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary.
    The opinion states the case.
    No brief on file for appellant.
    
      Tom, Garrard, Attorney for the State, and Grover C. Morris, Assistant Attorney for the State.
   LATTIMORE, Judge.

Appellant was convicted in the District Court of Stephens County of receiving and concealing stolen property, and his punishment fixed at two years in the penitentiary.

Appellant and his wife were proprietors of a hotel. Prosecuting witness put up there. He had two hundred dollars in twenty dollar bills and turned it over to appellant’s wife for safe keeping. Appellant was working around the premises and had some conversation with prosecuting witness. That night or early the next morning appellant and his wife decamped. They were arrested at another town. Appellant had in his pocket something over two hundred dollars in twenty dollar bills. He said his wife gave him the money but that he did not know where she got it. The truth of these matters was for the jury and they have resolved the facts against appellant. We think them sufficient.

There are two bills of exception in the record, the first of which is in question and answer form and for that reason cannot be considered. The second bill shows exception was taken to the entire charge of the court. This is so at variance with the rules requiring that exceptions be specific and point out the matter complained of in such manner as this court may determine the correctness of the exception, as not to call for any discussion at our hands.

No error appearing in the record, an affirmance will be ordered.

Affirmed.