Case Name: H. Bluman v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1893-03-25
Citations: 33 Tex. Crim. 43
Docket Number: No. 689
Parties: H. Bluman v. The State.
Judges: Judges all present and concurring.
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 33
Pages: 43–65

Head Matter:
H. Bluman v. The State.
No. 689.
Decided March 25.
Motion for Rehearing Decided December 16.
1. Continuance — Practice on Appeal. — If, when considered in connection with the other facts proven on the trial, the proposed testimony of an absent witness, for whom a continuance was applied for, appears to he probably untrue, or if it be such as could or ought not to have had any weight with the jury, this court will hold that the motion for continuance was properly overruled.
2. Same. — A motion for continuance will also be held to have been properly overruled where substantially the same testimony as that sought from the absent witness was introduced by the defense on the trial.
3. Arson — Confession of Principal as Evidence Against an Accomplice— Charge Eimiting Such. Evidence. — On a trial of defendant as an accomplice to arson, where the indictment named two others as principals in the crime, Held, that it was not error to admit in evidence the confession of one of said principals, because, under the statute, Penal Code, article 89, it is expressly provided, that “on the trial of an accomplice the evidence must be such as would have convicted the principal;n and held, farther, that where the confession of such principal in no way implicates the accomplice, it is not error for the court in its charge to fail to limit and restrict the consideration of such evidence to the guilt of the principal only.
4. Same — Witness—Testimony of the Wife of Principal on Trial of an Accomplice.- — On the trial of one who is exclusively charged as an accomplice to the crime, where the principal, who is not indicted and on trial in the same prosecution, has taken the stand as a witness, and freely and fully confessed his own guilt, Held, that it is not error to permit the wife of said principal to testify as a witness in the case against the accomplice. [See below, subdivision 7. — Reporter.]
5. Evidence — Harmless Error. — On a trial for arson, where the evidence to the effect that defendant and his clerk entered the burning storehouse together; that the clerk asked the defendant whether they should endeavor to save any of the stock, to which defendant said they would not; and where it further appeared that defendant told another witness who had taken up an armful of goods, intending to carry them from the building, to put them down, Held, that the court did not err in admitting other evidence to the effect that the clerk forbade the removal of goods during the fire, and gave as a reason that it might affect a recovery on the insurance policies. If error to admit this evidence, it was harmless error in the light of the other evidence. [But see subdivision 11 below. — REPORTER.]
6. Arson — Evidence Sufficient. — See opinion for a succinct summary of evidence which the court holds sufficient to sustain a conviction lor arson.
ON MOTION POR REHEARING-.
7. Competency of a Wife as a Witness Where the Husband is Implicated in the Crime, but Hot on Trial. — The doctrine which should prevail, under such statutes as ours, is, that if the husband, being indicted for the same offense, is a competent witness, his wife is also. It is expressly provided that if the husband be on trial, the wife can he a witness for, but not against him. Code Crim. Proc., art. 735. If a- codefendant be on trial, the one not on trial may he made a witness by the State, and then the witness’ wife is a competent witness also.
8. Corroboration of an Accomplice by the Testimony of His Wife. — The wife of an accomplice is competent as a- witness to corroborate her husband, who, being an accomplice, has testified in the case. The marital relationship may affect her credi- • bility, but not her competency, and the degree of weight to be accorded to her testimony must be left to the jury.
9. Evidence — Acts and Declarations of Third Parties in Absence of the Accused. — On a trial for arson, where the theory of the State was that the building was fired in order that the defendant might get the insurance on his stock of goods, and where the State was permitted to prove, over objections, that defendant’s clerk— defendant not being present — told parties not to save the goods, as it might affect a recovery on their insurance policies, whereupon they threw down the goods and went out, Held, the evidence was inadmissible in the absence of other testimony that defendant instructed the clerk not to save the goods and to forbid their removal from the burning building.
10. Opinion Evidence — Expert.—On a trial for arson, where the State was permitted to ask her witness, “Do you think defendant, had he tried, could have saved any of his goods?” and the witness answered, “Tes, I think so,” Held, the evidence was clearly inadmissible, it being impossible for the witness to be an expert at saving goods from a burning house.
11. Evidence — Harmless Error. — The admission of inadmissible evidence can not be considered harmless error where the jury evidently must have considered it as strong testimony in support of the State’s theory of the guilt of the accused.
12. Defendant’s Wife as a Witness — Extent of Cross-Examination of.— Where the wife has been examined as a witness for her husband on a criminal trial, her cross-examination must be confined to the matter elicited hy the direct examination, and it is error to permit her to be cross-examined as to independent matters or independent statements made by her which may be used or construed as evidence against her husband.
Appeal from the District Court of Lee. Tried below before Hon. Beauregard BryaN.
Appellant was convicted as an accomplice to the crime of arson, the indictment alleging that the fire was applied to the house by one Paul Kirschner and one George B. Jones, and that appellant, prior to the commission of the crime by said parties, “did unlawfully and willfully promise the said Paul Kirschner to pay him, the said Paul Kirschner, the sum of five hundred dollars to procure the commission of said offense by the said Paul Kirschner, the said H. Bluman not being present at the commission of said offense by the said Paul Kirschner and George B. Jones,” etc.
Imprisonment for five years in the penitentiary was the punishment assessed against him.
In the closing paragraph of the opinion of Judge Simkins, below, will be found a very concise but clear statement of the case as made by the State’s evidence, and it is deemed unnecessary to go into a detailed statement of the facts. We will add, however, that George B. Jones, who was charged with Kirschner as principals in setting fire to the building, after he was arrested for the crime also confessed that he and Kirschner had committed the deed. Jones was arrested by Deputy Sheriff Sparks, who testified that he had repeatedly warned Jones that what he said could be used against him; and Sparks was permitted, over objection of the defendant, to testify fully as to the confessions made to him by Jones. This confession of Jones, as detailed by Sparks, corresponds with the confession of the coprincipal Kirsch-ner with regard to their plans and preparations for burning the building, and the circumstances immediately attendant on the burning of the building. It seems, however, from Jones’ confession, as well as from the other evidence in the case shown, that he (Jones) did not know that Bluman was in any manner connected with his and Kirsch-ner’s plans to burn the house. Kirschner testified that he had concealed Bluman’s connection with the matter from Jones. The testimony of the witness Sparks, detailing the confession of the coprinci-pal Jones, was objected to by the defendant — first, because it was hearsay; second, that it was a confession of a crime by one of the actors after its completion, and in the absence of defendant.
Another bill of exception was saved by the defendant to a portion of the testimony of Henry Jarman, a negro, who testified that on the niarht of the fire, and after the alarm had been si ven. he went with cle- fendant to Ms (defendant’s) storehouse, when defendant opened the door, and that upon entering the house they found certain trunks, which defendant said were his wife’s trunks, and requested the witness and another party to remove the said trunks to the hotel. In connection with this testimony the prosecution, over objection of defendant, was permitted to ask said witness the question, “Was one of these trunks in the middle of the aisle there?” which question was objected to as leading and suggesting the answer desired, and the witness was permitted to answer, “Tes, sir; it was pulled out in front of the door, in the aisle, when I first saw it.” This testimony was elicited by the State as a circumstance to show that defendant had previously prepared his wife’s trunks for removal before the building was set fire to.
Another bill of exceptions reserved by defendant was to portions of the testimony of the State’s witness B. C. Dodd, who testified that he had arrived at the fire about fifteen minutes after the alarm was given, and that defendant’s storehouse had not caught on fire at that time on the east and north sides; that he did not go in front, and he did not know whether it was on fire in front or not. And the prosecution was permitted, over defendant’s objection, to ask the witness, “Do you think that if Bluman had tried he could have saved any of his goods?” The objection to the question was that it called for the mere opinion of the witness, who had not qualified himself to give an opinion. And the objection being overruled, the witness was permitted to answer, “Tes, sir; I think so.” This witness having also testified that he had aided and assisted in carrying out goods from the adjoining storehouse, occupied by one Harris, and which house was also destroyed by the same fire, was asked, over objection of defendant, “How many goods were saved out of the Harris house that night? ” the objection being that the evidence sought was immaterial and irrelevant, and the objection being overruled, the witness was permitted to answer, “I should think there were probably seven or eight of us, who carried out five or six bundles of clothing apiece to the office of the lumber yard.”
The testimony of Kirk, Hillsman, Kessels, and Mrs. Emma Kirsch-ner, and defendant’s wife, Mrs. Bluman, in so far as the same was objected to by the defendant, will be found fully stated in the opinion of Presiding Judge Hurt on the motion for rehearing.
No further statement is deemed necessary.
Rector, Thompson & Hector, for appellant.
1. The court erred in permitting the witness Ike W. Sharp, deputy sheriff, to detail before the jury what Jones had told him he had done, and what part he (Jones) had taken in the crime charged, over the objection of the appellant that the same was, first, hearsay, and second, the statement of a crime by one of the actors after its completion, and in the absence of the appellant.
The indictment charged Paul Kirschner and George B. Jones with the offense of arson, and in same indictment appellant was charged as an accomplice in said crime by procuring said Kirschner to commit the said crime. Sparks testified that he was deputy sheriff; arrested Jones; warned Jones that what he might say could be used against him; warned him repeatedly. Jones denied at first having anything to do with it; then confessed and said he and Kirschner did it; that they used gasoline oil and a fuse, and that they got Bisse and others to come and be present, and fixed everything, etc. See his testimony in full.
The testimony was inadmissible for any purpose against appellant. Authorities not needed. If the confession of Jones, as detailed by the witness, was admissible at all, it was only admissible to prove the guilt of Jones as a principal, which the indictment charged and which it was incumbent on the State to show. Objection being made to it by appellant, who was alone on trial, the court should have' limited its effect at the time of its introduction, and also by its charge. This the court failed to do. The charge was generally excepted to. It was reversible error not to so limit it in the charge, whether specially excepted to or not. The error was pointed out in a motion for a new trial. Crook v. The State, 27 Texas Crim. App., 241; Simms v. The State, 10 Texas Crim. App., 131; Arnold v. The State, 9 Texas Crim. App., 435; Poston v. The State, 12 Texas Crim. App., 408; Whart. Crim. Ev., sec. 602.
This evidence, being hearsay, was not admissible to corroborate the witness Kirschner, and even if Jones had been on the stand testifying to these facts, his testimony, confessing his own participation, could only be admissible against himself, and the court would have to have so limited it.
2. The court erred in allowing the State’s counsel to ask the State’s witness Henry Jarman, a freedman, the following question: “Was one of these trunks in the middle of the aisle there?” and the witness to answer, “Tes, sir; it was pulled out in front of the door in the middle of the aisle when I first saw it,” over the objection of the defendant that the question was leading and suggested the answer.
The State was seeking by this witness and others tó show that appellant had prepared the trunks containing his wife’s wedding trousseau and wedding presents, and among other things her solid silver and plated ware, ready to be taken out in the hurry of a fire. The question at that time before the jury was whether or not Bluman ran into the store with said State’s witnesses J arman and Kessel, and j erked the trunk out from under the counter where it had been placed for some weeks, or whether appellant had already, before they entered that night, pulled out this trunk into the aisle ready to be carried out; hence the importance of guarding against any leading question on so important a point. Was the question leading? It certainly was. Was it upon a material point? It certainly was. Was it excepted to? It certainly was, and the error brought before the court again in motion for new trial.
3. The court erred in allowing the State’s counsel to ask the State’s witness B. 0. Dodd, “Do you think that if Bluman had tried he could have saved any of his goods?” and the witness to answer, “Yes, sir; I think so,” over appellant’s objection that said question called for the mere opinion of the witness, who had not shown any knowledge that would have authorized him to give an opinion; and to allow the State’s counsel, over appellant’s objection that the same was irrelevant and immaterial, to further ask said witness, “How many goods were saved out of Harris’ house that night?” and to allow said witness to state, “I should think there was probably seven or eight of us carried out five or six bundles of clothing apiece to the office of the lumber yard.”
The witness Dodd did not go to Bluman’s building; did not know whether or not it was on fire in front or inside. Went to Harris’ store and helped to save goods. He was absolutely without any knowledge of facts upon which to base an opinion as to what Bluman might or might not have done in the way of saving his goods. There was no rule of law or of fact offered or suggested to the court as to how it could be material in the trial as to how many goods Mr. Harris succeeded in saving from the fire. Irvine v. The State, 26 Texas Grim. App., 37; Whart. Crim. Ev., sec. 405.
It can not be intelligently contended for a moment that the witness Dodd was in the possession of a single fact that authorized him to give the jury an opinion on the subject as to whether Bluman had or had not made proper efforts to save his goods. Nor were any facts developed before the jury that would authorize them to institute a comparison between the success of Harris’ efforts and Bluman’s efforts in saving their respective stocks of goods. It might depend on who got there first, and who volunteered to help the one and refused or failed to help the other, or whether or not a highly nervous, fainting, and sick wife required the personal care of the one and not of the other. This'evidence warranted the jury in concluding Bluman was guilty, if he failed to save as many goods as Harris did. This illegal and unauthorized evidence was used strongly in the closing argument against appellant. It was illegal, excepted to, and calculated to injure the rights of appellant. This error will require a reversal.
4. The court erred in permitting State’s counsel to ask the State’s witness Kessel the following question, and the witness to answer over appellant’s objection. First, it was leading; second, the defendant was not present; and third, it was immaterial. Question — “Did you tell Mr. J. S. Hillsman that night when you were in the store (defend ant’s store) not to take any goods out of it?” Answer — “I don’t remember if I did or not, but I don’t remember it; but if Mr. Hillsman said that I did, I will not dispute bis word about it.” The same question was asked same witness as to what he had said to Judge L. Kirk, and the same reply made over the same objection of appellant.
The State was seeking to show, by first laying this predicate to impeach its witness Kessel, and by the testimony of Hillsman, Kirk, and others, that such statements had been made by the witness Kessel, who was appellant’s clerk at the time. Hillsman did not testify at all. Kirk’s testimony is found in record, pages 119 and 120. The testimony of Kessel was, that Bluman had not given him any such instruction, or rather that he had no remembrance of it. On the contrary, he details what he and Bluman did in an effort to save goods, and that Bluman told him to save the best goods. Bluman testified he never gave such orders and never heard Kessel make such a statement, and Judge Kirk says he did not think Bluman was present at the time the man that he afterwards learned was Kessel made the remark.
This court can not say that such gross violation of every fundamental rule of evidence can be passed over by saying it was error, but no damage was done. It was on a vital point as to whether Bluman was trying to burn up his stock of goods. Bluman was being made responsible for what an unauthorized person said about removing goods, and this in his absence. The special counsel for the State, who, it may be remarked, was the attorney for the insurance companies in their civil suit instituted against Bluman, dwelt in his closing argument with much vehemence upon this testimony, and said of course everybody knew Bluman had instructed Kessel not to let the goods be saved; and in the inflamed state of public sentiment this was most damaging to appellant. There was no proof, nor did the State claim, that Kessel was in any conspiracy to burn up the storehouse and goods.
It was error for the court to allow the State to prove by its witness, Judge L. Kirk, that he was in the appellant’s store during the fire, and that he started to save goods, or some one in the crowd started to pick up and carry out goods from the store of appellant; but that some one, whom he afterward learned was Kessel, told them to put them down, that it might affect a recovery on insurance policies; that he did not at that time see defendant, and did not think he was present. To all of which defendant objected, because, first, the same was irrelevant and immaterial, and, second, the defendant was not present and was not responsible for what anybody else did or said, and that it had been shown that he had not authorized any such thing.
This evidence is the purest hearsay. Kessel is making a statement in the absence of appellant, which is taken by the State as the act of appellant, when appellant knew nothing of such Statement, if it was made — a statement showing the grossest violation of good faith toward the insurance companies, and, more tban tbat, showing a most pernicious fraud being practiced on the insurance companies. All this is shown, notwithstanding Kessel had sworn that Bluman did not authorize such an act, and although Kirk swore Bluman was not there. He did not then know Kessel. Counsel for the State, in closing the argument, claimed that Bluman was acting through Kessel in not allowing his goods to be saved. If this man is to wear stripes upon such evidence as this and like evidence admitted by the court, then we might as well abandon and abrogate every rule of evidence known to the books.
The court erred in holding that Emma Kirschner was a competent witness against appellant, she being the wife of Paul Kirschner, who was jointly indicted with the appellant — the indictment charging him as a principal and appellant as an accomplice in the same crime. The appellant was alone on trial.
The district attorney had kept back a separate indictment against Kirschner, although he intended, as he stated under oath, to have presented a separate indictment on which he intended to prosecute him. The reason, given under oath by him, was that he wanted to deprive the appellant of the right, conferred by statute, to sever and have the witness Kirschner, codefendant, first tried. All the preliminary evidence will be found in bill of exceptions number 10, record 249. The statement and argument in brief of associate counsel on this point is full and explicit, and we will not' enlarge on it here to any considerable extent. Was Paul Kirschner at that time prosecuted for the same offense? The charge against him, whether or not it had culminated in an indictment, was that of a principal in the crime of arson, while Bluman was charged as an accomplice in the same crime. Were they charged with the same offense? See Crook’s case, 27 Texas Crim. App., 241. Technically, let us admit that they were not, but for the purpose and scope of this error complained of in this assignment, no fair man will say they were not. Kirschner was, in this indictment, charged as a principal, and he and Bluman could have been tried on this indictment together. Ho legal reason why not. If Kirschner was not technically indicted, he was in the spirit of the law charged with same offense. He intended to have the grand jury thereafter present a separate indictment against Kirschner, and the reason he had not already done so, was that he wanted to deprive this appellant of his legal right to claim a severance and have Kirschner tried first. Mrs. Kirschner’s evidence was the only evidence outside that of her husband’s that corroborated him at all. Dill v. The State, 1 Texas Crim. App. 278; 1 Greenl. on Ev., sec. 335; Whart. Crim. Ev., sec. 392, and cases cited; Morrill v. The State, 5 Texas Crim. App., 447; Cotton v. The State, 62 Ala., 12; The State v. Welch, 26 Me., 30.
Tbe court erred in. permitting tbe State to cross-examine Nora Binman, a witness for tbe appellant and tbe wife of tbe appellant, upon . facts not inquired about in direct examination, tbe rule being that sbe can only be cross-examined upon facts testified to by ber in examination in cbief.
Tbe bill of exceptions shows fully wbat sbe bad testified to on direct examination, and it also shows that tbe rule stated above was utterly ignored, over tbe objection of tbe defendant made at tbe time.
It was not error without prejudice. Tbe State was trying to discredit this witness by showing that sbe too bad a guilty knowledge of tbe impending disaster to tbe town, and that sbe showed it and commented on it herself. “She bad a presentiment that something was going to happen.” It is true, when allowed to do so, that sbe explained wbat she referred to, and that was that sbe bad not beard from ber mother for some time, etc. Will tbe court reverse tbe known and well-recognized rule with reference to tbe cross-examination of a wife, or bold that, if error, it was without prejudice? Can this court undertake to say bow this illegal evidence might have affected tbe jury? Johnson v. Tbe State, 28 Texas Crim. App., 25; Washington v. Tbe State, 17 Texas Crim. App., 203.
Ed. _B. Sinks, Rector & Harris, and Jones & Garwood, also for appellant.
1. Tbe court erred in allowing tbe witness B. C. Dodd to testify, over tbe objection of tbe defendant, as to bis opinion whether tbe defendant could have saved more of bis goods, and also to testify as to bow many goods were saved out of Harris’ store tbe night of tbe fire, for tbe reason set forth in bill of exceptions number 5, in which tbe questions and answers appear. Cooper v. Tbe State, 23 Texas, 336; Campbell v. Tbe State, 10 Texas Crim. App., 560; Willson’s Crim. Stats., sec. 2502.
2. Tbe court erred in allowing tbe witness Benno Kessel to testify, over the objection of defendant, as to statements made by him when defendant was not present, which statements and testimony and tbe objections thereto are set forth in bill of exceptions number 6; and in allowing the witness Judge L. Kirk to testify, over tbe objection of defendant, as to statements made by Benno Kessel, in tbe absence of defendant, which statements and testimony and tbe objections thereto are set forth in bill of exceptions number 9. Willson’s Crim. Stats., sec. 2499.
3. Tbe court erred in permitting the State’s counsel to ask Nora Bluman, tbe wife of defendant, over tbe objection of defendant, as to statements made by ber when defendant was not present, as set forth in bill of exceptions number 11, in which said question and tbe answer thereto and tbe objections of defendant to tbe same fully appear.
(1) The wife of a defendant on trial can not be asked on cross-examination any question except as to matters testified to by her in her direct examination.
(2) The statement of a wife or any other witness can not be used as evidence against the defendant when he was not present.
In support of the foregoing the following authorities are cited: Creamer v. The State, 34 Texas, 173; Greenwood v. The State, 35 Texas, 587; Washington v. The State, 17 Texas Crim. App., 203; Johnson v. The State, 27 Texas Crim. App., 135.
The court permitted the counsel for the State to ask appellant’s wife if she had not said after the fire, on same night, that she had a presentiment that something was going to happen. To which she answered that she did. Her testimony on the direct examination was n.ot in reference to anything that would authorize such a question, even if appellant had been present.
The above authorities are conclusive that such a question was illegal for more reasons than one. First, she was the wife of defendant, and the question on cross-examination had no reference to what she had testified in her examination in chief; second, what she might have said was no evidence in the case whatever. It was introduced evidently to prejudice the defendant before the jury, and doubtless had the effect intended. It was in line with other errors heretofore alluded to, in the admission of testimony contrary to all recognized rules of evidence, and highly prejudicial to appellant.
4. The court erred in permitting the witness Emma Kirschner to testify in this case over the objection of defendant, because she was an incompetent witness. The reasons of said incompetency, the objection of defendant, and the evidence given by her, are fully set forth in bill of exceptions number 10.
The wife of a man who is charged with the same offense as the defendant is an incompetent witness against such defendant, unless the State first, in good faith, discharges the witness’ husband. Dill v. The State, 1 Texas Crim. App., 278; 1 Greenl. on Ev., sec. 335, and foot notes 3 and 4; Id., sec. 341.
Bill of exceptions number 10 shows the facts preliminary to the introduction of the State’s witness, Emma Kirschner, as a witness. The indictment under which appellant was tried is also an indictment against Paul Kirschner, the husband of said witness, and George B. Jones, as principals. There was no dismissal as to said Paul Kirschner. The district attorney stated, as per bill of exceptions, that he intended to indict said Kirschner separately at that time and prosecute him as a principal, and that he held back the indictment for it for the purpose of preventing the appellant from demanding that he be first tried. Mrs. Kirschner was allowed to testify that she overheard a conversation between appellant and her husband, in his store, on. Thursday or Friday before the fire Sunday night; that defendant said to her husband, Paul Kirschner, that he was ready for the fire to go off Sunday night, when the women folks were gone; that Bluman, appellant, promised her husband to pay him $40 or $50 on Saturday or Sunday following. This testimony was in corroboration of her husband’s testimony against appellant.
It will be seen that the testimony of this witness was damaging to appellant, and was introduced to corroborate the testimony of her husband. If she was an incompetent witness, then the error in allowing her to testify was material, and would of itself require a reversal of the case. The mere fact that the district attorney was holding back a separate indictment against Paul Kirschner could not affect the admissibility of said testimony. . He was indicted in the same indictment with appellant, as a principal, and that was sufficient charge against him; and if he had not been so indicted it would not affect the question, for he was still charged with the crime, and the State intended to prosecute him on a separate indictment. He had not been discharged. Then, was his wife a competent witness against appellant, when her testimony was as much against her husband as the appellant"? We think not. If by indicting two men separately, or trying them separately, you could bring on the stand the wife of the one as a witness against the other, and convict him with her testimony, then in such examination, though no question as to her husband’s direct guilt were asked her, still she could be asked questions that would most certainly lead to proof of his guilt, and thereby she would be testifying against her husband. To illustrate: Suppose she were asked if she had heard a conversation between her husband and the party on trial, without asking what her husband said, and then ask her if any one was present with her at the time, and she should answer in the affirmative and give the name of the party; then the State by that means could force her to furnish the name of a witness with whose testimony a conviction could be obtained against her husband. Such is not the policy of the law. If the husband has not been discharged, then the wife is as much an incompetent witness against his codefendant, whether being tried jointly or separately, as against her husband. There is no reason in the position that, because they are tried separately, the wife therefore becomes a competent witness against the husband’s codefend-ant. Such a rule would be a dangerous innovation of the well-established principle that a wife can not testify against her husband. It would be doing indirectly what could not be done directly.
5. The court erred in his charge to the jury in failing to limit the evidence introduced to prove the guilt of Paul Kirschner and George B. Jones, who were charged as principals in the case, as only showing their guilt, and that it could not be considered by the jury as evidence against the defendant Bluman.
(1) When tbe defendant is on trial as an accomplice, the State must prove the principal’s guilt, and such evidence introduced for that pur* pose must be limited in the charge of the court.
(2) Where extraneous evidence is introduced by the State for the purpose of establishing a basis on which to prosecute the defendant on trial, the court in its charge must limit such evidence to the purpose for which it was admitted.
In support of the foregoing, the following authorities are cited: Arnold v. The State, 9 Texas Crim. App., 435; Davidson v. The State, 22 Id., 372; Washington v. The State, 23 Id., 336; Mainesv. The State,. Id., 568.
The court nowhere in its charge limited said evidence to Jones’ and Kirschner’s guilt, but it went before the jury as evidence in the case without limitation, no one being on trial but appellant. This court clearly decided in the case of Arnold v. The State, 9 Texas Criminal Appeals, 435, that a failure to limit such evidence in the charge, when the accomplice was on trial, is such error as will require a reversal of the case. It is also laid down in the ■ other authorities above cited, that in perjury cases, where the record in the case in which the defendant is alleged to have committed the perjury is introduced, the court must limit its scope in its charge, and a failure to do so is reversible error. The propositions under this assignment are too well established to require comment.
Searcy & Garrett, for the State.
1. It was necessary to introduce evidence showing the guilt of the principals in the crime, and it was proper for the court to allow the witness Sparks to testify as to the confession made him by George B. Jones, one of the principals.
H. Bluman was indicted as an accomplice in the crime of arson. Paul Kirschner and George B. Jones were the principals. Penal Code, art. 89; Arnold v. The State, 9 Texas Crim. App., 438; Crook v. The State, 27 Texas Crim. App., 239.
2. At page 74 of the record the witness Jarmon testified that one of the trunks was right in front of the door when he and Bluman entered the store. He was then asked, “Was one of the trunks in the middle of the aisle there1?” His answer was: “It was not directly in the middle of the aisle; there was a place between the end of the counter and the door.” 1 Greenl. on Ev., sec. 434; Kennedy v. The State, 19 Texas Crim. App., 632.
3. The witness Dodd testified to the facts upon which he based his opinion. He testified that he was boarding at the Union hotel, at Giddings, the same place where Bluman was boarding; that about fifteen minutes after the alarm of fire was given he got up and dressed and started to the fire; that about half-way between the hotel and fire he met Bluman going towards the hotel with a small bundle in his bands that be took to be books; that after passing Bluman be went on to tbe fire, and with others helped to remove a considerable quantity of clothing from Mr. Harris’ store. Then be was asked if Bluman could have saved any of bis goods bad be tried, and be answered, “Yes.”
Kessel testified that, after saving two or three armfuls of clothing, Bluman said be was not dressed and must go to tbe hotel.
Bluman left tbe store and did not return any more. Bluman’s store was not on fire when Bluman and Kessel left it. Bluman’s store was tbe last to burn. Bipley v. Tbe State, 29 Texas Crim. App., 44.
4. Kessel testified: “I opened the door that night myself; Bluman and Henry Jarmon I think were present. I did not go into tbe store just then. Henry Jarmon and Bluman went in first, while I was taking my trunk off tbe sidewalk. I then followed them in. Bluman then said, ‘Take out my wife’s trunk the first thing.’ So we took out tbe first trunk just a little piece from tbe door; it was pulled away from tbe end of tbe counter, ready to be taken out.” West v. Tbe State, 2 Texas Crim. App., 474.
If Kessel, Bluman’s clerk, bad refused to allow persons to remove goods from tbe store on tbe night of tbe fire, tbe State bad tbe right to ask him if be was acting under Bluman’s instructions. If Bluman was present at tbe time Kessel made tbe parties put down tbe goods, then tbe testimony was admissible. Tbe answer of tbe witness could not have damaged tbe defendant.
Tbe witness Kessel testified that be did not remember whether be told Kirk or Hillsman not to remove any goods from tbe bouse. On cross-examination by defendant be testified: “I don’t remember of Bluman telling me not to let anybody take goods from tbe store.” Kessel also testified that Bluman was present all tbe time be was in tbe store tbe night of tbe fire.
Tbe indictment was simply against Bluman as an accomplice and be alone was upon trial. Therefore Mrs. Kirscbner was a competent witness. It is only where tbe husband is upon trial that tbe wife is not a competent witness.
Tbe defendant Bluman was indicted as an accomplice and was alone upon trial. Dill v. Tbe State, 1 Texas Crim. App., 278; 1 Greenl. on Ev., sec. 342; Wbart. Crim. Ev., sec. 392.
There was no injury done tbe appellant by tbe question and answer complained of, and if error it was harmless.
On cross-examination Mrs. Bluman was asked: “Did you not state at tbe hotel on tbe night after tbe fire that you bad a presentiment that something was going to happen?” To which tbe witness answered: “We were playing cards, and I said to Mrs. Griffith that I feel like something has happened at home. I haven’t beard from home in several days.” On re-examination by tbe defendant tbe witness testi- fled: “I stated in the presence of a number of persons that, because I bad not received a letter from borne in three or four days, and I bad always gotten a letter almost every day, I thought something was going to happen.”
The court in plain and direct terms instructed the jury that Paul Kirschner was an accomplice, and that the appellant could not be convicted on his testimony alone, but that it must be corroborated.
The court instructed the jury that Kirschner must be corroborated in his testimony connecting Bluman with the arson.
There was direct and positive evidence connecting Bluman with the offense, outside of the circumstantial evidence introduced, and it was not necessary for the court to charge upon the law governing circumstantial evidence, especially when the defendant did not request a charge upon this point.
There was no special exception reserved to any portion of the judge’s charge, but simply a general exception, and there being no fundamental error in the charge of the court, appellant can not com-plain.
The court instructed the jury: “ If the testimony of the witness Paul Kirschner, an accomplice in this case, has been corroborated, and the evidence then taken leaves you without reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the defendant, you should return a verdict of guilty; otherwise a verdict of not guilty.” Also: “A conviction can not be had upon the testimony of an accomplice, unless corroborated by other evidence tending to connect the defendant with the offense committed; and the corroboration is not sufficient if it merely shows the commission of the offense; that is, if it merely shows a willful burning has been committed.”
Kirschner testified that Bluman had agreed to pay him $500 to burn the house. That but two or three days before the fire Bluman came in his store and told him that the time to do it was while the women folks were in Austin, and that Sunday night was the time, etc.
Mrs. Kirschner testified: “A few days before the fire I heard a conversation in German between Paul Kirschner and Bluman. I came down stairs and I saw Bluman come in, and I stepped back a little because I did not want him to see me, and he came in and said to my husband: ‘I am ready for it to go off Sunday night, as the women are off,’ and they were talking about $40 or $50, which, as much as I understood, he promised to pay my husband Saturday or Sunday. That conversation was in my husband’s store, and was two or three days before I went to Austin.”
There was circumstantial evidence introduced in addition to the testimony of Kirschner and Mrs. Kirschner tending to connect the defendant with the crime.
There were no special instructions asked by the defendant, nor was any special exception reserved to any portion of the charge, but simply a general exception to it as a whole.
• The following authorities are cited on circumstantial evidence: Jones v. The State, 23 Texas Crim. App., 501; Jack v. The State, 20 Texas Crim. App., 656; Smith v. The State, 21 Texas Crim. App., 278; Beeper v. The State, 29 Texas Crim. App., 154.
And on failure to except to charge: Willson’s Crim. Stats., sec. 2362; Finney v. The State, 29 Texas Crim. App., 185; Quintana v. The State, 29 Texas Crim. App., 402; Smith v. The State, 22 Texas Crim. App., 316; Lewis v. The State, 18 Texas Crim. App., 401.
The record in this case is so voluminous that it is hard to get all of the facts before the court in a brief. And while there may appear to have been errors committed in the trial of the case, we undertake to say, that if the court will examine the record carefully, it will be found that if any were committed they did not prejudice the cause of the defendant, and were harmless.
JR. L. Henry, Assistant Attorney-General, also for the State, filed an able and interesting brief.

Opinion:
SIMKINS, Judge.
Appellant was indicted and convicted as an accomplice in the offense of arson, and his punishment assessed at five years in the penitentiary, from which he appeals.
1. The court did not err in overruling the motion for a continuance. The witness Hudson is not shown to have been sufficiently familiar with the Bluman stock as to have formed any definite idea as to its value. Nor does it appear that his estimate could or ought to have had any weight with, the jury. If he had testified as appellant states he would, the testimony, in view of the facts proven, would have been probably untrue. Again, the witnesses who were to prove that Kirschner was suspected of burning his saloon in Austin were unimportant, in view of the facts that substantially the same testimony was introduced on the trial by the defense; and, besides, the said Kirsch-ner was a self-confessed criminal, upon whose uncorroborated testimony no conviction could be had. Walker v. The State, 14 Texas Crim. App., 618; Tucker's case, 23 Texas Crim. App., 512.
2. Nor did the court err in admitting proof of the confession of George B. Jones. The appellant was indicted as an accomplice, and Paul Kirschner and George B. Jones were charged as principals, and it devolves on the State to prove the guilt of the principals. Penal Code, art. 89; Arnold's case, 9 Texas Crim. App., 438; Crook's case, 27 Texas Crim. App., 239. And no error is shown in the failure of the court to limit this evidence to the proof of the guilt of Jones, for the reason that the testimony in no way implicated Bluman. On the contrary, it was shown by said evidence that Jones was ignorant of the fact that Bluman was implicated in the crime, and seemed surprised to learn it. Had the court so limited the evidence, it would have been urged as error, because it excluded testimony tending to acquit appellant.
3. Appellant complains that the court erred in admitting on the trial of this case the testimony of Mrs. Kirsehner, the wife of one of the principals in the crime. It appears that Kirsehner was not indicted for the crime in the present indictment, which is exclusively against Bluman as an accomplice; that neither Kirsehner nor Jones was upon trial. Again, it is shown that, when her testimony was offered, Kirsehner, her husband, had taken the stand, and had fully and freely testified as to his own guilt. The reason of the rule that excludes the testimony of a wife when her husband is jointly tried with others is, because her testimony may injure him, and, upon sound principles of public policy, she can not be heard to testify against her husband. It was so held in the Dills' case, 1 Texas Criminal Appeals, 278. But this rule can have no application where the husband is not indicted and upon trial, and where he has confessed his guilt, and we see no error in the admission of the testimony. 1 Greenl. on Ev., 342; 1 Whart. Crim. Ev., 392.
4. In the fourth, seventh, and eleventh errors appellant complains of the error of the court in admitting evidence that Kessel forbade the removal of goods during the fire because it might affect a recovery on the insurance policies. The evidence shows that Kessel was appellant's clerk, who kept the store key, and he and appellant entered the store together, and after the trunks were taken out (claimed by Bluman to contain his wife's trousseau, but said by the insurance adjusters to contain clothing from the stock), that he was asked by Kessel whether they should save any of the stock; that he said not to do so, but that afterwards he said to save some of the best clothing; and that he, Kessel, and a negro each took an armful, and this was all that was saved — -the parties carrying off the goods to the hotel. Hot only that, but a witness states he took up an armful of goods, and was told by Bluman to put them down. Bluman himself only carried out a book. And in this connection it is difficult to see how the adjusters could have allowed Bluman $375 salvage on clothing, unless the three trunks claimed by him to contain his wife's trousseau and bridal presents were in reality filled with clothing out of the store, as stated by the adjusters, and the clothing must have been packed in the trunks in anticipation of fire. We think, as disclosed by the record, Kessel was acting under the instructions of appellant when he forbade the goods being taken, and, if not, it was simply what Bluman was doing himself; and, if error to admit the testimony, it was harmless. We think the charge was sufficient, and was as favorable as appellant could ask. There was no exception taken to any part of the charge, and we find no injury to appellant therein.
We have carefully examined the voluminous record in this case, and, despite the splendid defense interposed in his behalf, we think the evidence sustains the verdict. The evidence establishes an excessive insurance of appellant's stock, it being insured at double its value; that he was anxious to close out'his business and move from G-iddings; that he purchased but few goods and had allowed his stock to run down, and bought out his partner's (his brother-in-law's) interest, at $1150, a short time before the fire; that three weeks before the fire he sent down three trunks to the store, that were found filled with clothing goods after the fire; that on Sunday, before the fire that night, he spent most of the day in the store, taking a rough statement of his stock, and left his safe unlocked, expecting a fire; that he only saved his check book and stub book, but not his book containing merchandise accounts, and thereby succeeded in having a false credit of $1500 allowed by the adjusters; that he was in his room, dressed, when the fire broke out, after 11 o'clock, was restless that night in the hotel, and after the fire was in an unusual happy state of mind, and liberally treated the crowd at the hotel, and stated to several he was fully insured, and gave the amount; that at the trial he claimed to have destroyed the memoranda by which he affected a settlement of his insurance. Appellant's statement was contradicted by nearly every witness, in everything connected with the fire. It is also shown that the appellant knew Kirschner before he came to Giddings to do business, and, as Kirschner states, assisted him in getting a place next to himself. When we add to this the direct statement of Kirschner that Bluman, whose store joined his, offered him $500 to burn his store, and paid him a portion of it, and the statement of Emma Kirschner, his wife, who heard the final conversation between them, we think the jury was fully justified in finding the verdict. We are aware of the character of the witness Kirschner, but it does not appear that he is to be released on account of his convicting appellant. On the contrary,-it appears that he is to be indicted as principal, and prosecuted for this very crime; and there is no suggestion of any ill-will between the witness and appellant, nor any motive for implicating appellant, except the truth.
There is no error in the record, and the judgment is afflrmed.
Affirmed.
Judges all present and concurring.