Case Name: TRACY v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1928-12-19
Citations: 12 S.W.2d 205
Docket Number: No. 12095
Parties: TRACY v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 12
Pages: 205–206

Head Matter:
TRACY v. STATE.
(No. 12095.)
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Dec. 19, 1928.
Reasonover & Reasonover, of Denison, for appellant.
A. A. Dawson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, J.
Conviction for burglary; punishment, three years in the penitentiary.
A chicken house belonging to a Mr. Derryberry'was burglarized at night. Said house was locked and was entered by some one cutting the chicken wire which formed a part of the wall. Alarm was given, and parties were heard running through a nearby pasture. Several sacks containing Mr. Derry-berry's chickens were found near a fence. In a road not far from the fence was a truck which was admitted to belong to appellant. Appellant was seen in the neighborhood the next morning Ratless and coatless. A coat identified as tiiat of appellant was fonnd, also a cap. Appellant's shoes were taken to the place and fitted into tracks which appeared to be leaving the chicken house and going toward the'truck. We deem the facts amply sufficient.
There are two bills of exception, one of which sets out testimony of a witness to the effect that he heard two men running away from the direction of Mr. Derryberry's chicken house through a pasture, and that he presently discovered a man lying by a fence, and that it was one Overturf, who testified in this case that he and appellant committed the burglary. This witness further said that he found several sacks of chickens not far away. Said bill further complains of the admission of certain statements of this witness regarding tracks. In view of the fact that the bill of exceptions contains much recital of facts clearly admissible, and that no separate complaint is made of the testimony of this witness regarding tracks, we are of opinion that the bill manifests no error. Dixon v. State, 91 Tex. Cr. R. 217, 238 S. W. 227.
Bill of exceptions No. 2 sets out complaint of the admission of the testimony of the sheriff who said he took appellant's shoes and fitted them in tracks near the scene of the burglary, and that they fitted exactly. The admission of this testimony was not error. Walker v. State, 7 Tex. App. 264.
No error appearing in record, the judgment is affirmed.