Case Name: CRAVER v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1922-06-14
Citations: 243 S.W. 1089
Docket Number: No. 7020
Parties: CRAVER v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 243
Pages: 1089–1090

Head Matter:
CRAVER v. STATE.
(No. 7020.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
June 14, 1922.
Rehearing Denied Oct. 18, 1922.)
1. Criminal law <§=>1095 — Bill of exceptions not filed within time allowed will be stricken from record.
A bill of exceptions which is not filed within the time allowed will be stricken from the record.
2. Burglary <§=>41 (I) — Evidence held sufficient to- warrant conviction.
In a prosecution for burglary, evidence held sufficient to warrant conviction.
Appeal from District Court, Hill County; Horton B. Porter, Judge.
Jim Graver, Jr., was convicted of burglary, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Smith & Clarke, of Hillsboro, for appellant.
R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, J.
Appellant was convicted in the district court of Hill county of the offense of burglary, and his punishment fixed at two years in the penitentiary.
We are met at the threshold of the consideration of this case by motion of the state to strike from the record appellant's bills of exception because filed too late. The trial term of the court below ended February 18, 1922. In the order overruling appellant's motion for new trial he was granted 30 days after adjournment in which to file bills of exception. On March 16 appellant asked for an extension of said time, and the court then entered an order granting 20 days' time in addition to that already given. Fifty days from February 18 would expire April 9. Appellant's bills of exceptions were filed April 17. This was too late. The state's motion to strike out must be sustained.
There remains only the-question of the sufficiency of . the evidence. The testimony for the state showed that on the night in question a barn under the control of the prosecuting witness was burglariously entered, ,and a quantity of pecans and some sacks were taken therefrom. It rained that night. On the next day the prosecuting witness and two other men found, the tracks, of four persons leading to and also- from said barn. The tracks were followed to the house of Jim Craver, Sr., the father of appellant. One track was followed from the house of Jim Craver, Sr., across the field to the home of appellant. These tracks were measured. The shoe worn by appellant on said night was measured and corresponded, according to the testimony of said witnesses, with one of the tracks traced from the burglarized barn. . Two sacks of pecans were found hidden under a haystack at the home of appellant's father, which were' identified by prosecuting witness as his pecans and .being in his sacks. Some pecans were found at the home of appellant which were also claimed by the prosecuting witness as his. The case was one of circumstantial evidence. The jury heard the testimony supporting the claims of the defense and also of the state and resolved the contradictions in such testimony in favor of the state.
Finding no error in the record, the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.
<§=>For other oases see same topic and KEY-NUM1II3R in all Key-Numnered Digests and Indexes