Case Name: SHORNWEBER v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1913-04-16
Citations: 156 S.W. 222
Docket Number: 
Parties: SHORNWEBER v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 156
Pages: 222–224

Head Matter:
SHORNWEBER v. STATE.
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
April 16, 1913.
On Motion for Rehearing, May 7, 1913.)
1.Criminal Law <§ 1090 ) — Appeal-Necessity on? Bills of Exception.
Alleged objectionable and injurious remarks of the district attorney could not be reviewed where they were not verified in any manner or perpetuated by bills of exception.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2653, 2789. 2803-2822, 2825-2827, 2927, 2928, 2948, 3204; Dec. Dig. § 1090. ]
On Motion for Rehearing.
2. Burglary (§ 4 ) — Character of Building —“Private Residence.”
A jewelry store in which was a little gallery about 10 feet above the floor curtained off as a sleeping apartment, with a railing around the gallery next to the store part, but without any partition, was not a “private residence” within the statute, which makes a distinction between ordinary burglary and the offense of breaking into a private residence.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Burglary, Cent. Dig. §§ 14-18; Dec. Dig. § 4.
For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, vol. 6, p. 5578.)
3. Criminal Law (§ 1172 ) — Review—Instructions — General Submission of Daytime and Nighttime Burglary.
Where an indictment in one count charged a daytime burglary and in another a nighttime burglary, and there was evidence sufficient to support a conviction under the second count, but not under the first, an instruction submitting generally, the question whether accused broke and entered the house, without reference to either a daytime or nighttime burglary, was not erroneous, since the verdict being general the conviction would be imputed to the count sustained by the facts.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 3128, 3154-3157, 3159-3163, 3169; Dec. Dig. 1 1172. ]
Appeal from Criminal District Court, Harris County; C. W. Robinson, Judge.
H. L. Shornweber was convicted of burglary, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
J. M. Gibson and W. W. Wander, both of Houston, for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Deo. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
DAVIDSON, P. J.
Appellant was convicted of burglary; his punishment being assessed at 12 years' confinement in the penitentiary.
There are two propositions in the motion for new trial — first, the undisputed evidence shows that the house burglarized was a private residence; and, second, the district attorney used remarks during his argument which were objectionable and injurious. To the second ground it may be stated that these matters are not verified in any manner or perpetuated by bill of exceptions, and therefore cannot be considered. To the first ground it may be replied we are of opinion that the evidence does not show burglary of a private residence. The indictment contains two counts in the ordinary form charging burglary at night and in daytime. Nowhere in either of these counts is it undertaken to charge that the house burglarized was a private residence. The theory upon which this contention is made is that in one part of the house the alleged owner had a room in which he slept. The burglarized house was a jewelry establishment, one of the front windows being broken by a rock and the jewelry taken through this aperture. The alleged owner slept in a different part of the house from that occupied as the jewelry establishment. The alleged injured party slept in another part of it on a little gallery between the lower floor and the roof, elevated about 10 feet from the floor. This will not constitute the store a private residence within the meaning of the statute. This matter was discussed in Alinis v. State, 63 Tex. Cr. R. 272, 139 S. W. 980, and same style of case page 371 of same volume.
There are other questions suggested in the brief, but are not presented by bill or motion in the record. They are suggested here for the first «time. Under tbe ruling of this court, these matters cannot be reviewed.
As the record is presented, the judgment is ordered to be affirmed.