Case Name: John Knott v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1922-11-29
Citations: 93 Tex. Crim. 239
Docket Number: No. 7233
Parties: John Knott v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 93
Pages: 239–242

Head Matter:
John Knott v. The State.
No. 7233.
Decided November 29, 1922.
Rehearing granted January 17, 1923.
1. — Theft—Bill of Exceptions.
Where the bills of exception were in question and answer form, and besides showed no reason or surrounding facts pertinent to the objections made, the same could not be considered on appeal, and there was no reversible error on that ground.
U. — Same—Rehearing—Conviction for Two Offenses — Verdict—Judgment.
Where the indictment contained two counts, one for theft and the other for receiving and concealing stolen property, both of which were submitted to the jury, who found a general verdict of guilty as charged in the indictment, assessing defendant’s punishment at five years imprisonment in the penitentiary, and the court adjudged defendant guilty of both offenses .as charged in the indictment, the same was reversible error. Following Moore v. State, 83 Texas Crim. Rep., 302, and other cases. Disapproving Schwartz v. State, 18 S. W. Rep., 415.
Appeal from the Criminal District Court of Tarrant. Tried below before the Honorable George E. Hosey.
Appeal from a conviction of theft and receiving and concealing stolen property; penalty, five years imprisonment in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case.
H. S. Lattimore, for appellant.
R. G. Storey, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, Judge.
Appellant was convicted in the Criminal District Court of Tarrant County of the offense of theft, and his punishment fixed at five years in the penitentiary. There is no brief on file for appellant.
The record contains seven bills of exception, an examination of which established the fact that each of said bills of exception is in question and answer form, which practice has been uniformly condemned by this court and held to be sufficient cause for refusal to consider such bills, except in those cases wherein it becomes a material fact as to the form of some particular question complained of. No complaint is made of the form of any particular question. Blonk v. State, opinion handed down November 8, 1922; Kolb v. State, 91 Texas Crim. Rep., 572, 240 S. W. Rep., 311.
However if the fact of said bills being in question and answer form should for any reason be overlooked by us, each of same is subject to the further objection that nothing is made to appear therein of the antecedents or surrounding facts pertinent to the objections made and from which this court might obtain any light upon the proposition embraced in the objection. It is uniformly held by this court that to entitle a bill of exceptions to consideration such bill must present facts which of themselves sustain the proposition of error announced in the bill.
The indictment appears to be in regular form, and the charge of the court was so acceptable to appellant as that he presented no exceptions thereto. The evidence shows the taking of an automobile from its owner in Tarrant County and its possession by appellant shortly thereafter. The facts sufficiently support the verdict.
No error appearing in the record, the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.
Affirmed.