Case Name: REID v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1920-12-16
Citations: 226 S.W. 408
Docket Number: No. 6026
Parties: REID v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 226
Pages: 408–409

Head Matter:
REID v. STATE.
(No. 6026.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Dec. 16, 1920.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 12, 1921.)
1. Parent and child <&wkey;17(6) — 'Testimony as to children being sent to orphanage admissible in prosecution of father for desertion.
In prosecution for child desertion, testimony of witness with whom defendant had left his children for six or eight months without payment therefor, in violation of his agreement to pay witness, that at the end of such period the children were taken to a particular orphanage, held, admissible on issue of defendant’s willful abandonment and desertion of the children.
2. Criminal law <&wkey;>!090(l) — Matters in motion for a new trial not presented by bills of exception not considered.
Matters appearing in motion for new trial not presented by bills of exceptions will not be considered on appeal.
3. Parent and child <&wkey;>!7(6) — Evidence held sufficient to sustain conviction for child desertion.
In prosecution for child desertion,, testimony that father left his children with person whom he agreed to' pay specific amount a month and that after making first month’s payment he left children with such person for six or eight months without payment therefor, held sufficient to sustain a conviction, in absence of evidence showing any excuse or justification for such conduct.
Appeal from Kaufman County Court; J. P. Coon, Judge.
Ed Reid was convicted of child desertion, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Ross Huffmaster, of Kaufman, for appellant.
Alvin M. Owsley, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, J.,
Appellant was convicted in the county court of Kaufman county of child desertion, and his punishment fixed at a fine of $25 and 30 days' confinement in the county jail.
Appellant has two bills of exceptions in the record, which is very short. But one witness testified, he being the gentleman with whom appellant left his two children some time in February, 1920. This witness testified that appellant brought bis two little girls, one about five years old, and the other younger, to witness' house and left them there, agreeing to pay $50 a month for their keep, and that during the months of February and March appellant paid a total of $57, and thereafter paid no more. Some time in July this witness caused complaint to be filed against appellant, charging him with willfully deserting said children. The trial occurred in September, 1920, and while testifying said witness further stated that after the complaint against appellant was filed said children were taken to the Salvation Army Orphanage. The first bill of exceptions complains of the admission of the testimony in the record to the taking of said children to the orphanage. No conversation appears in the record or is shown in the bill as accompanying said transaction. We think the whereabouts and condition of said children from the time appellant left them with said witness were material facts as affecting the question of his willful abandonment and desertion of them. The fact that they were taken by the witness, or any other person, six or eight months after appellant left them, to the orphanage, would not be evidence that would be injurious to him, and we do not think that any error was committed in the admission of such testimony^ The other bill of exceptions complains that said witness was permitted to testify that after appellant was arrested he gave bond. We see nothing in this bill presenting any error.
The other matters appearing in the motion for new trial are not presented' by bills of exceptions, and we cann6t consider them.
We do not think the trial court erred in refusing to instruct a verdict.of not guilty, nor do we think the record without evidence to support the conviction. It was in testimony, without controversy, that from February to the time of trial appellant only contributed to the support of said two children the sum of $57. Appellant did not see fit to introduce any evidence showing any excuse or justification for such conduct, and we think the jury warranted in concluding that it was without justification. Finding no error in the record, the judgment will be affirmed.
iSsoFor other eases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes