Case Name: GAMMON v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1924-05-28
Citations: 262 S.W. 488
Docket Number: No. 8285
Parties: GAMMON v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 262
Pages: 488–489

Head Matter:
GAMMON v. STATE.
(No. 8285.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
May 28, 1924.)
1. Receiving stolen goods <§=8(3)— Evidence held to sustain conviction.
Evidence held to sustain a conviction for receiving and concealing stolen property.
2. Criminal law <§=1091 (I I) — Bills of exceptions in question 'and answer form not considered by appellate court.
Bills of exceptions in question and answer form cannot be considered by appellate court.
3. Criminal law <§=1059(2) — Exception taken to entire court’s charge not considered on appeal.
An exception taken to entire charge of court contrary to the rule requiring exceptions to be specific will not be considered on appeal.
Appeal from District Court, Stephens County; G. O. Hamlin, Judge.
Sam Gammon was convicted of receiving stolen property, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover 0. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, J.
Appellant was convicted in the district court of Stephens county of receiving and concealing stolen property, and his punishment fixed at two years in the penitentiary.
Appellant and his wife were proprietors of a hotel. Prosecuting witness put up there. He had $200 in $20 bills and turned it over to appellant's wife for safe-keeping. Appellant was working around the premises and had some conversation with prosecuting witness. That night, or early the next morning, appellant and his wife decamped. They were arrested at another town. Appellant had in his pocket something over $200 in $20 bills. He said his wife gave him the money, but that he did not know where she got it. The truth of these matters was for the jury, and they resolved the facts against appellant. We think them sufficient.
There are two bills of exception in the record, the first of which is in question and answer form and for that reason cannot be considered. The second bill shows exception was taken to the entire charge of the court. This is so at variance with the rules requiring that exceptions be specific and point out the matter complained of in such manner as this court may determine the correctness of the exception, as not to call for any discussion at our hands.
No error appearing in the record, an af-firmance will be ordered.
<g=For other eases see same topic and KEY-MXJMBEP. in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes