Case Name: Max Childress v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1922-05-03
Citations: 92 Tex. Crim. 215
Docket Number: No. 6880
Parties: Max Childress v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 92
Pages: 215–221

Head Matter:
Max Childress v. The State.
No. 6880.
Decided May 3, 1922.
Rehearing Granted, May 31, 1922,
1. —Theft—Bills of Exception — Filing.
Where the bills of exception were not properly filed, they cannot be considered on appeal; however, where it was made to appear that they in fact bore the file mark of the clerk, the case is heard upon its merits.
2. —Same—Ownership—Husband and Wife — Indictment.
In theft cases, ownership of the separate property of the wife may be alleged to be in either the husband or the wife, and where ownership was alleged in the wife, there was no reversible error.
3. —Same—Evidence—Arrest—Declaration by the Defendant.
Where the bill of exceptions did not make it clear that there was only one conversation, and it being left in doubt, the court’s qualification will control and this court must presume that the ruling of the court below in admitting the testimony was correct, holding that a second conversation where defendant was not under arrest, was admissible.
4. —Same—Market Value — Charge of Court — Rule Stated.
Value as it relates to stolen property is the market value of the thing at the time and place of the taking, if it had a market value, and if not the value would be the' amount it would cost to replace it, and testimony as to what it cost etc., was therefore admissible.
5. —Same—Bills of Exception — Questions and Answers.
Where the bills of exception were in question and answer form same cannot be considered on appeal. Following Jetty v. State, 90 Texas Crim. Rep., 346 and other cases.
6. —Same—Evidence—Intimate Relations of Witness and Defendant.
In view of the issues raised by the defendant, and his witnesses, the trial court was in error in excluding from the jury any evidence which would have shown intimate relations between the prosecuting witness and the defendant, the rule would be otherwise if the witness simply occupied the relation of an ordinary witness, but defendant’s contention is that it was by reason of these very intimate relations that he secured the alleged stolen property with her consent, the same was admissible. Following Eppison v. State, 83 Texas Crim. Rep., 364.
7. —Same—General Reputation — Rule Stated.
Where defendant had in no way put his reputation in issue, but on cross-examination of State’s witness district attorney propounded the question whether the witness knew defendant’s reputation as a law-abiding citizen, the same was reversible error.
Appeal from the District Court of Orange. Tried below before the Honorable V. H. Stark.
Appeal from a conviction of felony theft; penalty, two years im-, prisonment in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case.
Howth & O’Fiel, for appellant.
— On question of value: Close v. State, 117 S. W. Rep., 137; Floyd v. State, 117 id., 138; Keipp v. State, 103 S. W. Rep., 392.
On question of general reputation: Maxwell v. State, 78 S. W. Rep., 516; Hinton v. State, 144 id., 117.
R. G. Storey, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Opinion:
HAWKINS, Judge.
— Conviction is for felony theft, punishment being assessed at two years confinement in the penitentiary.
Our Assistant Attorney General calls attention to the fact that none of the bills of exception appear from the record to have been filed in the lower court. They are approved by the trial judge, but without the record shows the filing in the court below they cannot be considered. Oliver v. State, 58 Texas Crim. Rep., 50,124 S. W. Rep., 637.
We have examined the statement of facts, and find the evidence sufficient to support the' verdict. It being purely a fact case as the record now appears we deem it unnecessary to set out the evidence.
The judgment of the trial court must be affirmed.
Affirmed.