Case Name: Henry Pilot v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1897-12-01
Citations: 38 Tex. Crim. 515
Docket Number: No. 1433
Parties: Henry Pilot v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 38
Pages: 515–520

Head Matter:
Henry Pilot v. The State.
No. 1433.
Decided December 1. 1897.
Opinion on the Merits Decided January 12, 1898.
1. Transcript on Appeal—How Forwarded—Practice.
Code of Criminal Procedure, article 897, provides, “As soon as the transcript is prepared the clerk shall forward the same by mail, or other safe conveyance, charges paid, inclosed in an envelope securely sealed, directed to the proper clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals,” and the Rules of the' Supreme Court for the District Courts require the clerks to send transcripts in felony cases by mail. Held, a transcript which, by its indorsements, shows it was delivered to appellant’s attorneys, and through them found its way into the Court of Criminal Appeals, will be stricken from the docket, and a certiorari ordered to the clerk of the district court to make out a new transcript and forward the same according to law.
2. Burglary—Continuance.
On a trial for burglary an application for continuance, when considered on motion for new trial was held properly overruled where it appeared that it was proposed to prove by the absent witness that a few days prior to the burglary he, witness, had repaired a rifle gun for defendant, the other testimony adduced showing that the gun defendant had attempted to use at the time of the burglary was a shotgun and not a rifle.
3. Same—Alibi.
An application for continuance to prove an alibi should be so definite as to its statement of the facts as would manifest at least the witness’ opportunities to be able to testify as to the alibi.
4. Alibi—Rebutting Evidence.-
Original testimony may be introduced which directly rebuts defendant’s theory and testimony as to an alibi.
5. Burglary—Expert Evidence.
On a trial for burglary, where the State’s witnesses had testified that a brother of defendant was shot in the burglarized house, his dead body having been found next morning in a gully some eighteen feet in the rear of the house, it was competent for a physician who had examined the wounds upon his body and the clothing he was wearing to state that in his (the expert’s) opinion it was possible for deceased, after he had been shot in the house as testified, to have gotten to the gully without leaving any sign of blood along the route.
6. Same—Evidence of Other Similar Crimes—Charge of Court.
On a trial for burglary where evidence was admitted without objections, to the effect that the same house had been previously burglarized, and which evidence the State introduced for the purpose of explaining the presence of the prosecutor and others as watchers in the house; Held, a charge of the court which omitted to limit and restrict such evidence would not be revised where no exception for the omission had been reserved by the defendant to the charge; and especially where such evidence of the previous burglaries did not tend in the remotest degree to implicate any particular person.
7. Same—Proof of Intent.
On a trial where -defendant was indicted for burglary with intent to commit theft, and his contention was that the intent established by the evidence was an assault to commit murder, and not an intent to commit theft; Held, the fact that defendant’s confederate (his brother) carried with him a pillow-slip which was left in the storehouse after the brother had been shot, and fled, and that before the burglary the parties had been seen prowling around the house, sufficiently established that their intent and purpose was to steal from the store.
8. Mew Trial—Misconduct of Jury.
It is no ground for a new trial that one of the jurors makes affidavit to the effect, that after he expressed his belief that defendant was not guilty, he was induced to assent to the verdict because he believed he would be grossly insulted by the others if he did not do so.
Appeal from the District Court of Shelby. Tried below before Hon. Tom C. Davis.
Appeal from a conviction for burglary; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary.
The burglarized house was situated in East Hamilton, a village in Shelby County, and was used by R. R. Wiggins, the alleged owner, as a wareroom in which he stored corn meal, meat, flour, plow tools, etc. The house had been entered previously and meat and other things taken from it.
On the night of May 12, 1897, R. R. Wiggins and C. L. Johnson went into the house about dark to remain all night and watch the jrremises and to try and find out and arrest the burglars. They had their guns wdth them, and after remaining there for some time they spread a pallet down and went to sleep. At a late hour in the night they were awakened by a noise art the east door of the house; and in a short time, some fifteen or twenty minutes, the door was unfastened and two parties entered the building and came up to about the center of the room, where Wiggins and Johnson were waiting for them with their guns in hand. Johnson struck a match and quickly lit a lamp which they had brought with them, and the parties saw the defendant and his brother, Hamby Pilot, at a lard barrel. Wiggins hallooed to the parties to hold their hands up, when he says the defendant raised his gun, and the gun snapped at them. Wiggins fired his gun, and as the parties fled from the door Johnson also fired upon them. There was a gully about eighteen feet from the rear of the house into which the parties jumped after they had made their escape, and in a few moments Wiggins said he heard the voice of Hamby Pilot down in the gully saying, “I surrender, gentlemen! I surrender!” It being dark, and knowing that the burglars were armed, they did not approach the gully, but sent off Wiggins’ son to a camp, 200 yards distant, of some parties who were making barrel staves, for the purpose of getting dogs with which to trail the burglars. The next morning, after daylight, the dead body of Hamby Pilot was found in the gully. And a pillowslip, which Hamby Pilot had been carrying the evening before, was picked up inside the burglarized building. At the inquest which was held over the dead body of Hamby Pilot it was found that his leg had been terribly shattered by buckshot; and the physician who made the examination testified that he had died from the effects of the wound. Ho blood was found in the warehouse or upon the trail leading from the door of the house to the gully. The physician stated it as his opinion, that the party could have been shot inside the house and have gone the distance to the gully without leaving any signs of blood on the trail, considering the character of clothing he had on the wounded leg. And, in the opinion of the physician, the deceased might have broken his leg, after the hone of the leg was fractured, as he sprang from the building to the ground—a distance of about four feet high. Wiggins and Johnson were arrested for the murder of Hamby Pilot, and were afterwards indicted, tried, and acquitted for that murder, before the defendant in this case was tried for the burglary.
The theory of the defense in this case wás that the house had not been burglarized at all, and that the deceased, Hamby Pilot, had been shot by Wiggins or Johnson outside the house. Another defense for this defendant was alibi, and that if Hamby Pilot had committed the burglary this defendant was not there acting with him. Defendant proved that he and his brother had had a personal difficulty, and had nothing to do with each other for some time prior to his brother’s death. Defendant also proved good character for honesty in the community in which he lived.
D. M. Short & Sons, for appellant.
Mann Trice, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

Opinion:
HENDEESdST, Judge.
Appellant was convicted of a felony, and appeals.
The transcript bears this indorsement: "Applied for by D. M. Short & Sons, attorneys for appellant, on the 16th day of August, 1897, and delivered to D. M. Short & Sons on the 6th day of September, 1897.
[Signed] "J. T. Jones,
"Clerk District Court Shelby County."
We understand by this that the transcript was delivered to the attorneys for appellant, and found its way into this court through said attorneys. Article 897, Code of Criminal Procedure 1895, provides: "As soon as the transcript is prepared the clerk shall forward the same by mail, or other safe conveyance, charges paid, inclosed in an envelope securely sealed, directed to the proper clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals." In connection with this article, the rule prescribed by the Supreme Court for district courts requires the clerks to send transcripts by mail, in felony cases, postpaid, to the clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals, to the branch at which the case is returnable, etc. And see Lockwood v. State, 1 Texas Crim. App., 749. We accordingly hold that said transcript does not come into this court through the proper channel provided by law. Moreover, on an inspection of the record, we find an agreement between the parties to correct the transcript; showing, evidently, that the record is not properly prepared.
It is accordingly ordered that the transcript in this case be stricken out, and a certiorari is ordered to the clerk, to prepare and forward a new and complete transcript of said case to this court, in the mode provided by law.
Certiorari ordered.