Case Name: JONES v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1925-11-18
Citations: 277 S.W. 641
Docket Number: No. 9487
Parties: JONES v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 277
Pages: 641–642

Head Matter:
JONES v. STATE.
(No. 9487.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Nov. 18, 1925.)
J. E. Edmondson, of Bellville, for appellant.
Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., /of Austin, and Nat Gentry, Jr.,' Asst. State’s Atty., of Tyler, foi’' the State.

Opinion:
HAWKINS, J.
Conviction is for burglary. Tbe punishment is two years' confinement in tbe penitentiary.
Tbe bouse claimed to have been burglarized belonged to one R. B. Woodley, in which he kept harness used in conducting farm operations. Some horse collars and bridles were taken at the time of the alleged burglary. It is not claimed by appellant that he was not guilty of theft of said property, but he makes the contention that the offense of burglary was only testified to by an accomplice, and that be was not sufficiently corroborated upon this point to authorize the conviction to. stand.
Joe Wilson was tbe admitted accomplice. He testified that appellant and Son Madison, together with witness, went to Mr. Woodley's premises in a ear driven by Madison; that witness and appellant left the car, telling Madison to get some water for it; that witness and appellant went on to tbe harness house and found tbe door closed and fastened with a chain with a lock through one of the links, but not locked; that appellant took the lock out of the chain, unfastened and opened the door, and took tbe property named, and that witness and appellant then carried it to tbe car where Madison was waiting for them; that under tbe direction of appellant Madison drove tbe car near the premises of one McDade; that appellant then took tbe property and carried it to McDade's house, leaving witness and Madison in tbe car. Madison corroborated tbe testimony of Wilson concerning tbe handling of the property, but was not present at the harness house, and therefore could not testify whether tbe house was opened by appellant as claimed by Wilson. McDade testified that he bought tbe property in question from appellant alone. If the accomplice, Wilson, is corroborated as to tbe burglarious entry of the bouse, it is from tbe testimony of the owner, Woodley. Tbe property was taken on Saturday ' night. The loss of it was discovered early Sunday morning, when Woodley found tbe door of tbe harness house standing about half open. Tbe lock which was used to fasten tbe chain was gone. In going to tbe lot to milk and feed, Woodley passed by tbe harness house. On Friday and Saturday he had occasion to pass there morning and evening and did not notice the door being open. The last time he had occasion to pass there before tbe Sunday morning when the loss of tbe property was discovered was late on Saturday evening about sundown. At this time tbe door was closed. Woodley said if at any time be found tbe door open it was his custom to close it, and that upon the occasions mentioned he did not notice the door being open. It seems to be conceded that tbe property which appellant sold to McDade was taken from the harness bouse, the only question being whetbe'r burglary was committed in obtaining possession of it. We think tbe testimony of Woodley sufficient to corroborate the accomplice Wilson upon this point, and that the evidence is not lacking upon which to permit tbe judgment of conviction to stand.
Some complaint is made of tbe charge of the court and tbe refusal to give certain special charges. Considering tbe charge as a whole, we think it sufficiently protected appellant's rights in tbe premises.
Bill of exception No. 4, complaining of certain argument of tbe district attorney, presents no error when considered in connection with the qualification attached thereto by tbe court.
Finding no error in tbe record, the judgment is affirmed.