Case Name: Lee Garsee v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1924-01-09
Citations: 96 Tex. Crim. 532
Docket Number: No. 8053
Parties: Lee Garsee v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 96
Pages: 532–536

Head Matter:
Lee Garsee v. The State.
No. 8053.
Decided January 9, 1924.
Rehearing denied February 20, 1924.
1. —Theft—Bills of Exception — Practice on Appeal.
On the original presentation of this case an order was discussed with reference to filing bills of exception, but a certified copy of said order to file bills of exception shows that this court was inadvertently misled by the date and that the bills of exception were filed in time.
2. —Same—Bills of Exception — Charge of Court — Recent Possession.
We find that the court’s charge on recent possession of the alleged stolen property by the appellant and as to whether his explanation thereof was reasonable, etc., is not on the weight of the testimony and not open to the objection taken, besides the bills of exception are defective.
3. —Same—Evidence—Bills of Exception — Value—Penalty.
The exception to the testimony of the owner of the alleged stolen car to the fact that he paid $3,050, for it, is not well taken, as there was no issue made that the value of the alleged stolen automobile was less than $50. Besides, the defendant received the lowest penalty.
4. —Same—Bill of Exceptions — Impeaching Witness.
With reference to the bill of exceptions complaining that the appellant was asked by the state if he had not been indicted for felony, this court observes that the rules do not require that the bill of indictment be produced in the first instance. If the witness admits that he has been so indicted, this meets the object of the inquiry.
5. —Same—Continuance—Practice on Appeal.
Where the record shows that one of the alleged absent witnesses was present and testified; that another witness was present but not used; that another was in the county of the prosecution and could have been secured; and that still another lived in another state and no effort was made to obtain his deposition, and his testimony would not have been admissible anyway, there was no error in overruling the application.
6. —Same—Argument of Counsel — Practice in Trial Court.
In view of the overwhelming sufficiency of the evidence and that appellant received the lowest penalty, and that no- exception was made to the argument of the State’s counsel, and moreover that the argument was withdrawn from the jury in due time, there is no reversible error.
7. —Same—Sufficiency of the Evidence — Charge of Court.
Where, upon trial of theft of an automobile the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction upon proper charge of the court, there is no reversible error.
Appeal from the District Court of Jefferson. Tried below before the Honorable Geo. C. O’Brien.
Appeal from a conviction of theft of automobile; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary.
The opinion state the case.
Howth & O’Fiel and Lamar Hart, for appellant.
Tom Garrard and Grover C. Morris, Assistants Attorney General, for the State.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, Judge.
Appellant was convicted in the District Court of Jefferson County of felony theft, and his punishment fixed at two years in the penitentiary.
The facts sufficiently support the judgment of guilty and will not be set out at length. Appellant was tried at the March Term of the 58th Judicial District Court at Beaumont. His motion for new trial was overruled on April 8, 1923. As part of the order overruling said motion the court allowed ninety days from said date in which to file statement of facts and bills of exception. There are six bills of exception each of which appears to have been filed on July 25th.' No order is in the record extending the time for filing such bills. The Assistant Attorney General moves to strike out the bills of exception because filed too late. The motion must be granted. The indictment is in regular form and the charge of the court seems to sufficiently present the law of the case. Exceptions were prepared and presented to the charge of the court but in view of certain requested charges which were given there is nothing in the exceptions.
No error appearing, an affirmance will be ordered.
Affirmed.