Case Name: GILDER v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1910-11-16
Citations: 133 S.W. 883
Docket Number: 
Parties: GILDER v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 133
Pages: 883–885

Head Matter:
GILDER v. STATE.
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Nov. 16, 1910.
On Motion for Rehearing, Jan. 18, 1911.)
1. Criminal Law (§ 1099 ) — Statement of Facts — Approval by Trial Judge.
A statement of facts not approved by the trial judge cannot be considered on appeal.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2866-2880; Dec. Dig. § 1099. ]
2. Criminal Law (§ 1097 ) — Denial of Continuance-Review — Statement op Facts.
Refusal to grant a continuance cannot be reviewed in the absence of a statement of facts.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2862, 2926; Dec. Dig. § 1097. ]
3. Burglary (§ 18 ) — Requisites — Indictment.
An indictment for burglary with intent to steal need not allege some value of the property intended to be stolen.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Burglary, Cent. Dig. §§ 31, 32, 36; Dec. Dig. § 18. ]
4. Criminal Law (§ 1097 ) — Denial of New Trial — Review—Statement op Facts.
Denial of new trial on the ground of error in refusing an application for a continuance will not be reviewed in the absence of a statement of facts.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2862, 2947; Dec. Dig. § 1097. ]
On Rehearing.
5. Criminal Law (§ 1110 ) — Record—Amendments.
Where the record on appeal has been corrected so as to show that the failure to insert in the transcript the approval of the judge to the statement of facts was an .oversight, and that the statement of facts was approved, the case will be considered on the merits.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Dec. Dig. § 1110. ]
6. Criminal Law (§ 595 ) — Continuance — Absence op Witnesses.
"Where, on a trial for burglary, the state relied solely on the possession by accused of stolen property after the burglary, the refusal to grant a continuance on the ground of the absence of witnesses to prove' an alibi and the confession of a third person who could have committed the crime was reversible error.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. .Dig. §§ 1323-1327; Dec. Dig. § 595. ]
7. CRIMINAL Law (§ 359 ) — Evidence — Ad - MISSIBILITV.
One on trial for crime may prove the confession of another in a position to have committed the crime.
[Ed. Note. — Por other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 789, 799; Dec. Dig. § 359.*]
Appeal from District Court, Jasper County; H. C. Howell, Special Judge.
Mitch Gilder was convicted of burglary, and he appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Smith & Blackshear, for appellant. John A. Mobley, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
DAVIDSON, P. J.
Appellant was convicted of burglary; his punishment being assessed at three years' confinement in the penitentiary.
There is what purports to be a statement of facts sent up with the record, but it is not approved by the trial judge. We therefore cannot consider it.
1. Without the statement of facts we cannot revise the court's action refusing to grant a continuance as shown by bill of exceptions No. 1.
2. Motion in arrest of judgment was made on the ground that the indictment fails to allege that the property intended to be stolen had any value. The indictment charges burglary of a commissary owned by the Al-dridge Lumber Company with the intent to fraudulently take from said house personal property belonging to said Aldridge Lumber Company without the consent of Weaver, who was alleged to be in possession, and with the intent to deprive the said Aldridge Lumber Company of the value thereof, etc. The point made by appellant is that the indictment should allege some value of the property intended to be stolen. This is not necessary. With reference to burglary, a forcible entry of a house for the purpose of committing theft, the value of the property is immaterial, and, if a party breaks a house with intent to commit theft, it is unnecessary to allege the value of such property.
3. The only ground of the motion for new trial is that the court erred in failing to grant the application for continuance. As before stated, the evidence is not before us and we are unable to review this question. The refusal of a continuance will not be revised in the absence of the evidence adduced upon the trial.
Finding no reversible error in the record, the judgment is affirmed.