Case Name: JONES v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1916-01-12
Citations: 182 S.W. 306
Docket Number: No. 3907
Parties: JONES v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 182
Pages: 306–306

Head Matter:
JONES v. STATE.
(No. 3907.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Jan. 12, 1916.)
1. Ceiminal Law <&wkey;59 — Principals.
Defendant was a principal, even if H., and not he, telephoned B. that I. wanted four sacks of sugar, and that a wagon would be sent therefor, whereupon defendant hired an expressman, who got it and took.it to H., who paid defendant for aiding in working the scheme.
[Ed. Note. — Eor other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 40, 41; Dec. Dig. <&wkey;>59.]
2. Criminal Law <&wkey;1092 — Appeal—Bill op Exceptions — Late Piling.
Bills of exception filed several days after the time allowed by the court cannot be considered on appeal.
LEd. Note. — Por other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2803, 2829, 2834-2861, 2919; Dec. Dig. <@=31092.]
Appeal from Criminal District Court, Dallas County; W. L. Crawford, Jr., Judge.
Cleveland Jones, alias Will Jones, was convicted, and appeals.
Affirmed.
G. Q. Youngblood, of Dallas, for appellant. C. C. McDonald, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
HARPER, J.
Appellant was convicted of a misdemeanor, and his punishment assessed at a fine of $25 and one year's confinement in the county Jail.
We have read the statement of facts, and it amply supports the verdict. The evidence for the state would show that appellant approached S. A. Hamra and offered to sell him four sacks of sugar for $20; that Hamra agreed to buy tlje sugar, but would only pay $18 for it; that appellant or some one then telephoned the wholesale house of Blair-Hughes Company that Bodeker's Ice Cream Company desired four sacks of sugar, and would send a wagon for it. Appellant then approached Alex Hampden, who drives an express wagon, and employed him to go to Blair-Hughes Company and get the sugar, and instructed him to carry it to Hamra's grocery store. Hampden got the sugar from Blair-Hughes Company and carried it to Hamra's. Hamra says he paid appellant $18 for the sugar. Appellant denies telephoning Blair-Hughes Company, says Hamra did so, but he admits employing Hampden to haul the sugar, and that Hamra paid him $10, saying that Hamra paid him this for aiding him in working the scheme. If his statement was true, we think his testimony would constitute him a principal offender, and under any and all phases of the' testimony he would be guilty.
The bills of exception were not filed within the time allowed by the court, nor for some daj^s thereafter; therefore they cannot be considered. We have read each of them, however, and, as qualified and approved by the court, none of them would present error.
The judgment is affirmed.