Case ID: sw_258/html/0472-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "LATTIMORE, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

HARRISON v. STATE.
    (No. 8345.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Feb. 6, 1924.)
    1. Criminal law ⅞=>1092(8) — Bills of exceptions held not timely.
    Where, after overruling a motion for new trial on August 3, 80 days were granted within which to file bills of exceptions, which were filed on October 30, filing thereof was not timely, and they cannot be considered.
    2. Embezzlement <@=>44(l) — Evidence held to
    sustain verdict for embezzlement of cotton.
    Evidence held to support conclusion of guilt of embezzlement of cotton by a subtenant on a farm who undertook, to gather it from a part of the farm which had been worked and planted by another.
    Appeal from Criminal District Court, Travis County; James R. Hamilton, Judge.
    Devi Harrison was convicted of embezzlement, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., of Midland, and Grover O. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.
   LATTIMORE, J.

Appellant was convicted in the criminal district court of Travis county of embezzlement and his punishment fixed at two years in the penitentiary.

There are three bills of exception in the record, none of which can be considered by us because not filed in time. From' the record it appears that appellant’s motion for new trial was overruled on August 3, 1923, and in the order overruling same appellant is granted 80 days from that date in which to file statement of facts and bills of exception. There appears no order extending the time for such filing. The three bills of exception were filed on October 30th. A slight computation makes plain the fact that this was 88 days after the order overruling the motion for new trial. The statement of facts was filed within the 90 days allowed by statute.

We have carefully examined the statement of facts, and are of opinion that same presents sufficient testimony to support the conclusion of guilt. Appellant was a subtenant upon *a farm belonging to Mr. Red, and undertook for and on behalf of Mr. Red to gather certain cotton upon part of said farm which had been worked and planted by a Mr. Peterson. Appellant accounted to Mr. Red for a certain number of bales of cotton as being those picked upon the land farmed by Peterson, but gave no account of any bale of cotton ginned at the Elroy gin on October 14th. The testimony showed that about this time appellant was picking cotton on the land farmed by Mr. Peterson, and that Mr. Red observed from frequent visits to the farm that cotton was being picked on said land for which no account was given. It is also shown that on the 14th of October appellant had a bale of cotton ginned at the Elroy gin, and that the probable value of it was considerably more than $50. Appellant did not testify nor make any explanation of the fact stated, and others of a strongly criminative nature. The court gave the law of misdemeanor embezzlement.

No error appearing, the judgment will be affirmed.