Case Name: PARK v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1915-06-25
Citations: 179 S.W. 1152
Docket Number: No. 3630
Parties: PARK v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 179
Pages: 1152–1155

Head Matter:
PARK v. STATE.
(No. 3630.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
June 25, 1915.
On Motion for Rehearing, Nov. 17, 1915.)
1. Larceny <&wkey;55 — Evidence—Sufficiency.
Evidence held to sustain a conviction of theft.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Larceny, Cent. Dig. §§ 152, 164, 165, 167-169; Dee. Dig. &wkey;>55.]
On Motion for Rehearing.
2. Criminal Law <&wkey;200 — Separate Offenses — Burglary and Larceny.
Under Pen. Code 1911, arts. 1317,1318, providing that one who commits burglary, and who while in the house burglarized commits any other offense, shall be punished for burglary, and for the other offense, a theft committed at the same time and in the same transaction of a burglary is separate from the burglary, and accused may be convicted of both.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 347, 386-409; Dec. Dig. &wkey; 200.]
3. Indictment and Information &wkey;>137 — Quashing Indictment — Grounds—Former Jeopardy.
That an indictment charges the same offense charged in another indictment under which accused has been convicted is not ground for quashing the indictment, but accused, to raise the point, must plead former jeopardy.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Indictment and Information, Cent. Dig. §§ 480-487; Dec. Dig. <&wkey;137.]
4. Criminal Law &wkey;>730 — Trial — Misconduct of State’s Attorney.
The act of the state’s attorney in asking, on the cross-examination of accused on trial for theft committed at the time of his commission of a burglary, if he had not been convicted of the burglary was not reversible error, where the court sustained an objection to the question, and. at accused’s request at the time directed the jury not to consider the question, as it had nothing to do with the case.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 1698; Dec. Dig. <&wkey;>730.]
5. Criminal Law <&wkey;1119 — Misconduct of State’s Attorney — Bill of Exceptions.
A bill of exceptions, complaining of the remark of the state’s attorney when a witness presented and identified an instrument, “They are just taking up the time of the court for nothing,” presents no reversible error, where it does not show how and in what way the remark affected accused’s case.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2927-2930; Dec. Dig. <&wkey; 1119.]
6. Criminal Law <&wkey;1119 — Misconduct of State’s Attorney — Bill of Exceptions.
A bill of exceptions, showing that accused excepted to the remark of the state’s attorney, after a witness had stated that he did not know the value of automobile tires: “Well, stand aside; if you have not sense enough to know the value of automobile tires, you can go” — presents no reversible error, where it does not attempt to show that accused was injured by the remark.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2927-2930; Dee. Dig. &wkey; 1119.]
7. Criminal Law &wkey;>1120 — Rulings on Evidence-Bill op Exceptions — Sufficiency.
A bill of exceptions which recites that, at the conclusion of the testimony of a witness, counsel for accused moved to strike out all the testimony of the witness because not qualified' as an expert to testify, and that the motion to strike was overruled, to which ruling accused excepted at the time, but which does not show what the testimony of the witness was, does not show reversible error.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2931-2937; Dec. Dig. <&wkey;> 1129.]
8. Larceny <&wkey;45 — Evidence — Admissibility.
Where, on a trial for the larceny of Federal Rubber Company tires, some of the witnesses called the tires “Goodrich tiros” the testimony of a witness, detailing a conversation with accused and a third person about the stolen tires, was properly received in evidence, though the witness, after detailing the conversation, stated that he believed that the third person said that the tires were “Goodrich tires.”
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Larceny, Cent. Dig. §§ 135, 136; Dec. Dig. <&wkey;>45.]
9. Criminal Law <&wkey;1051 — Questions Reviewable.
Under Code Cr. Proc. 1911, art. 938, providing that the court, on appeal, must presume that the venue was proven in the trial court, unless it affirmatively appears to the contrary by bill of exception, the court on appeal will not consider the question of venue not raised in the case, and 'no bill of exception taken on that question.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Dec. Dig. &wkey;>1051.]
Appeal from District Court, Bastrop County; Ed R, Sinks, Judge.
F. L. Park was convicted of theft, and he appeals.
Affirmed, and motion for rehearing overruled.
G. O. Brown, of San Antonio, Aaron Bur-leson, of Smithville, and John T, Duncan, of La Grange, for appellant. C. C. McDonald, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
PRENDBRGAST, P. J.
Appellant was convicted of the theft of some automobile tires of more than the value of $50, and his punishment assessed at the lowest prescribed by law.
This is a companion ease to 3631 against the same appellant, for burglary, this day decided. 178 S. W. 516. The burglary case was tried first. Much of the testimony is the same in both cases. We have carefully read, studied, discussed, and compared the testimony in each case, one with the other. The testimony in this case is much fuller and of additional facts from what was proven in the burglary case. For instance, in this case the waybill was produced, identified, and introduced in evidence, and the witnesses testified thereabout; it was not introduced in the burglary case. So was other documentary evidence introduced herein which was not introduced in the burglary case.
We think it unnecessary to detail the evidence herein. There is no bill of exceptions in the record, nor is the motion for new trial therein. The only question raised in this court, and so stated by appellant's attorneys in oral argument when the case was submitted, is whether or not the evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict; his contention being that it is not. We are of opinion it is. The testimony in this case was sufficient to show, and the jury authorized to find and believe: That the alleged stolen tires were shipped over the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company of Texas from' Dallas, by the shipper on April 14, 1914, to the consignee at Houston in a through shipment, in car 70181, M., K. & T., waybill No. 1761. That the train on which this car was hauled was hauled by a crew from Dallas to Waco. That appellant received it at Waco and hauled it to Smithville, reaching Smithville at 1:20 p. m. April 16th, where he turned over his papers, including said car and its contents, to the local agent there. After reaching Elgin, going to Smithville with this train, appellant told his engineer that he had this car, that it contained automobile attachments, and that the bottom of the door of the car had rotted off. The car reached Houston, hauled by the third crew from Smithville to Houston on April 17th, and when it reached there the seals of the car were shown to be unbroken, but the door of one side was rotted out some 10 to 12 inches, so that a person could pull the door open from the bottom, get in the ear, take out the tires, and then get out without breaking the seals. That shortly after this car had been hauled from Smithville he and one Terrell, in Smith-ville, approached Mr. Eggleston, an automobile man there, went into Eggleston's place of business, called him back privately, and asked him if he did not want to buy some automobile tires. Eggleston replied no. They discussed the matter awhile, but on this occasion, when Eggleston asked where he got the tires, he told him that he had pulled the car door open, swung it open from the bottom and had gotten the tires out of a car. After Eggleston refused to buy them, he asked if there was any place there they could hide them, and Eggleston told him, "No." Another witness testified that about 12 o'clock at night appellant, said Terrell, and one Thurmond hired his buss. The three got in it and had him drive down to the stock pens at the railroad in Smithville. When they reached the stock pens the three got out, were gone about five minutes, and brought back what the witness described and the jury were clearly authorized to believe were automobile tires, put them in the buss, and themselves got back therein. That they drove back towards town again, but before they got there they stopped, all three got out, taking the automobile tires with them, and disappeared. Some of the automobile tires which were shipped in this car and stolen therefrom were afterwards traced to and found in San Antonio and recovered by the railroad. A San Antonio party bought these tires from one Billy Edwards. About this time Phillips loaned Edwards $50, who gave the money to Pred Thurmond, one of the parties who was with appellant and Terrell the night they got the tires when they drove to the stock pens, Edwards stating that the $50 was to pay Terrell for tires that he and appellant were in trouble about, and that he paid the money to Thurmond on the order of Terrell therefor. This is a mere outline of some of the testimony. Taking it as a whole, we think it amply sufficient to sustain the verdict. Whether appellant took, the tires from the ear while it was standing in the yard at Smithville, or took them from the ear before he reached 'Smithville, would be immaterial, for wherever he first took the stolen property he is substantially and reasonably shown to have been in possession thereof with others at Smithville, and hence, under the law, could be convicted in Bastrop county, where he was tried and convicted.
Tins writer is of the opinion that the evidence in the burglary case, while not as full as in this case, was sufficient to sustain the verdict in that case.
After most careful consideration we have reached the conclusion that the evidence is sufficient to sustain the verdict in this case, and the judgment is affirmed.
<g^?For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
^3>Por other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes