Case Name: Ralph Sweeney v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1918-02-03
Citations: 84 Tex. Crim. 58
Docket Number: No. 4899
Parties: Ralph Sweeney v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 84
Pages: 58–75

Head Matter:
Ralph Sweeney v. The State.
No. 4899.
Decided February 3, 1918.
Rehearing denied June 28, 1918.
1.—Burglary—Statement of Facts—Bills of Exception. '
Where, upon an appeal from a conviction of burglary, it appeared from the record that the bills of exception and statement of facts were not filed within time, etc., they can not be considered, but the defects of the record having been remedied, the merits of the case are considered.
8.—Same—Indictment—Ownership—Possession.
Where, upon trial of burglary, the indictment alleged the possession of the burglarized house in B. C. Alexander, and the evidence showed that his possession of the property stolen therefrom was in the alleged owner for the purpose of sale, this would constitute such control as to make the same sufficient ownership and possession under the statute. Davidson, Judge, dissenting.
3.—Same—Evidence—Other Transactions.
Where, upon trial of burglary, the State was permitted to introduce testimony with reference to the disappearing of other property of the same kind at a different -time and a different place hot contemporaneous with the transaction alleged in the instant case and not shedding any light thereon, the same was reversible error. Prendergast, Judge, dissenting.
Appeal from the District Court of Tom Green. Tried below before the Hon. C. E. Dubois.
Appeal from a conviction of burglary; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case. .
J. P. Thomson, for appellant.
E. B. Hendricks, Assistant Attorney General, and J. A. Thomas, District Attorney, for the State.
On question of other transaction: Williamson v. State, 74 Texas Crim. Rep., 289, 167 S. W. Rep., 360; Turner v. State, 73 Texas Crim. Rep., 76, 163 S. W. Rep., 705; Conatser v. State, 75 Texas Crim. Rep., 91, 170 S. W. Rep., 314; Backus v. State, 77 Texas Crim. Rep., 653, 179 S. W. Rep., 1166; Medlock v. State, 79 Texas Crim. Rep., 322, 185 S. W. Rep., 566.

Opinion:
DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.
Appellant was convicted of burglary, his punishment being assessed at two years confinement in the penitentiary.
There was an order entered allowing thirty days in which to file statement of facts and bills of exception. The bills of exception were not filed within the .time allowed; in fact, they were not approved until the 24th day of October and filed November 24th. The court adjourned on the 25th of August. The bills, therefore, can not be considered. The Assistant Attorney General moves to strike out the statement of facts because not filed within any time permitted by law. As before stated, court adjourned on the 25th of August, and the statement of facts was not filed until the 24th day of November, being ninety-one days after court adjourned. We are of opinion under the decisions the Assistant Attorney General's point is well taken and should be sustained. Without the bills and statement of facts the questions presented for revision will not be decided. '
The judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.