Case Name: Aaron Edwards v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1922-02-01
Citations: 91 Tex. Crim. 196
Docket Number: No. 6597
Parties: Aaron Edwards v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 91
Pages: 196–199

Head Matter:
Aaron Edwards v. The State.
No. 6597.
Decided February 1, 1922.
Rehearing Denied March 1, 1922.
1.—Burglary—Evidence—Value.
Upon trial of burglary, it is not necessary to show the value of the property taken from the alleged burglarized premises. Following Lynne v. State, 53 Texas Grim. Rep., 386, and other cases. Stealing whisky from burglarized premises is burglary.
2. —Same—Evidence—General Reputation.
It is the general reputation in the community of residence and not merely reputation, and where the question was in the latter form, the objection thereto was correctly sustained.
3. —Same—Charge of Court—Objections to Charge—Domestic Servants.
Pretermitting a discussion of the facts relevant to a burglary by a domestic servant, the entry into the house in question having been shown to have been effected by actual breaking, there was no reversible error in the court’s failure to charge as to domestic servants.
4. —Same—Argument of Counsel—Requested Charge.
The bill of exceptions showing that the argument of State’s counsel was in reply to the argument of appellant’s counsel, there was no error, in the absence of a requested charge.
5. —Same—Practice on Appeal—Bill of Exceptions.
Complaints made in a motion for new trial as to the charge of the court and as to evidence admitted or rejected cannot be considered in the absence of a proper bill of exceptions.
6. —Same—Rehearing—Value of Property—Whisky.
Where it appeared on trial for burglary that the party injured was in lawful possession of the whisky alleged to have been stolen, there was no error in refusing a requested charge with reference to the value of the alleged stolen property.
7. —Same—Ownership—Occupation of House.
Where the indictment alleged that the burglarized premises were occupied- by the husband, and it was shown on the trial that he was temporarily absent thereon in a sanitarium, and that his wife remained at the home, visiting and staying with him at the sanitarium as often as she could, there was no variance in the allegation of occupation. Following Peoples v. State, 90 Texas Crim. Rep., 236.
Appeal from the District- Court of McLennan. Tried below before the-Honorable Richard I. Munroe.
Appeal from a conviction of burglary; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary:
The opinion states the case.
James E. Yeager, for appellant.
R. G. Storey, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, Judge.
—Appellant was convicted in the District Court of McLennan County of the! offense of burglary, and his punishment fixed at two years-in the penitentiary.
Appellant has four bills of exception in the record, which will be noticed. His first bill of exceptions is to the refusal of the court to give a special charge instructing the jury that in order for one to be convicted of 'theft, the property taken must have had some market value, etc. Said charge was correctly refused. Appellant was not on trial for theft, and on the trial of one accused of burglary it is not necessary to show the value of the property taken from the alleged burglarized premises. Hays v. State, 36 Texas Crim. Rep. 146; Mosley v. State, 43 Texas Crim. Rep. 559; Johnson v. State, 48 Texas Crim. Rep. 339;, Lynne v. State, 53 Texas Crim. Rep. 386.
One seeking to show the good character of his client by proof of reputation, must ask as to the general reputation in the community of residence, and a qusetion directed merely to reputation, and omitting the general character thereof, would be objectionable. Branch's Ann. P. C., p. 115 and collated authorities.
An exception to the charge of the court stated as follows: "Defendant excepts to the charge of the court as to domestic servant in that it fails to charge that the employment must be for outside work exclusively," is too general to call for review.' Vernon's P. C., See. 57, p. 521. No special charge presenting what appellant considered a correct definition of the term "domestic servant," was presented. Pretermitting a discussion at length of the facts relevant to a burglary by a domestic servant, we are of opinion that the entry into the house in question was shown to have been effected by actual breaking. Art. 1319, Vernon's P. C.
The remarks of State's counsel complained of in bill of exceptions No. 4, appear from the qualification of said bill by the trial court, to have been made in reply to the/ argument of appellant's counsel. No special charge was asked instructing the jury not to consider such remarks. No error appears in said bill.
Many matters are complained of in appellant's brief, which we cannot consider because not brought before us in any of those ways provided by statute for the presentation of matters believed to be erroneous. Complaints made in motions for new trial of charges given by the lower court, and of evidence admitted upon the trial, cannot be considered by us except such charges be properly excepted to when given, and proper exceptions be taken and preserved by bill of exceptions shown in the record to the introduction or rejection of evidence.
Finding no reversible error in the record, the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.
Affirmed.