Case Name: Mazie Fisher and Olivia Woodson v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1927-11-16
Citations: 108 Tex. Crim. 404
Docket Number: No. 11161
Parties: Mazie Fisher and Olivia Woodson v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 108
Pages: 404–408

Head Matter:
Mazie Fisher and Olivia Woodson v. The State.
No. 11161.
Delivered November 16, 1927.
Rehearing denied January 11, 1928.
The opinion states the case. -
D. S. Purl and L. Hamilton Lowe of Corpus Christi, for appellants.
A. A. Dawson, State’s Attorney, for the State.

Opinion:
CHRISTIAN, Judge.
The offense is theft from the person, the punishment confinement in the penitentiary for two years.
Appellants have brought forward for review six bills of exception.
An inspection of the first four bills of exception shows that they are insufficient to manifest error. No evidence verifying the truth of appellants' objections is incorporated in said bills. A mere statement of a ground of objection in a bill of exception is not a certificate of the judge that the facts which form the basis of the objection are true; it merely shows that such an objection was made. See Branch's Ann. P. C., Sec. 209, p. 134; Edelin v. State, 281 S. W. 1078. A bill of exception should be made so full and certain in its statements that, in and of itself, it will disclose all that is necessary to manifest the supposed error. Branch's Ann. P. C. Sec. 207, p. 131; James v. State, 138 S. W. 612. The bills of exception under consideration being insufficient to manifést error we must presume that the ruling of the trial court in admitting the testimony objected to was correct. The legal presumption is that the ruling of the trial court was correct, unless the bill of exception shows otherwise. Branch's Ann. P. C., Sec. 207, p. 132; James v. State, supra.
By bills of exception Nos. 5 and 6 appellants challenge the sufficiency of the evidence. The evidence is amply sufficient to support the verdict of the jury and the judgment rendered thereon.
The record discloses that appellants were in company with the injured party, Duffy, and that they snatched a pocketbook containing seventy-two dollars from his pocket and ran out of his sight. On the trial the state introduced the voluntary statements of appellants wherein they confessed that they took the injured party's pocketbook from his pocket, ran out of his sight, and divided the money. Shortly after the commission of the offense officers recovered the stolen money from appellants.
Finding no error, the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.