Case Name: Mitch Gilder v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1910-11-16
Citations: 61 Tex. Crim. 16
Docket Number: No. 807
Parties: Mitch Gilder v The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 61
Pages: 16–19

Head Matter:
Mitch Gilder v The State.
No. 807.
Decided November 16, 1910.
Rehearing Granted January 18, 1911.
1.—Burglary—Indictment—Allegation of Value.
In a prosecution for burglary it is not necessary that the indictment should allege some value of the property intended to be stolen; the value of such property is immaterial.
ÍZ.—Same—Continuance—Imputing Crime to Another—Alibi.
Where defendant filed his first application for continuance on account of the absence of several witnesses by whom he expected to prove, first, an alibi; and second, the confession of another party who was placed in such position that he could and might have committed the crime with which defendant was charged, the same should have been granted; as the State relied entirely on possession of property recently stolen.
Appeal from the District Court of Jasper. Tried below before the Hon. H. 0. Howell, Special Judge.
Appeal from a conviction of burglary; penalty, three years imprisonment in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case.
Smith & Blackshear, for appellant.
—On question of refusing motion for continuance: Richards v. State, 34 Texas Crim. Rep., 277; Clark v. State, 38 Texas Crim. Rep., 30; Walker v. State, 32 Texas Crim. Rep., 175; Ferguson v. State, 31 Texas Crim. Rep., 93; Hyden v. State, 31 Texas Crim. Rep., 401.
On question of insufficiency of indictment: Webster v. State, 9 Texas Crim. App., 75; Rodriguez v. State, 12 Texas Crim. App., 552; Treadwell v. State, 16 Texas Crim. App., 643; Washington v. State, 17 Texas Crim. App., 197.
C. E. Lane, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

Opinion:
DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.
—Appellant was convicted of burglary, his punishment being assessed at three years confinement in the penitentiary. There is what purports to be a statement of facts sent up with the record, but it is not approved by the trial judge. We, therefore, can not consider it.
1. Without the statement of facts we can not revise the court's action refusing to grant a continuance as shown by bill of exceptions No. 1.
2. Motion in arrest of judgment was made on the ground that the indictment fails to allege that the property intended to be stolen had any value. The indictment charges burglary of a commissary owned by the Aldridge Lumber Company, with the intent to fraudulently take from said house personal property belonging to said Aldridge Lumber Company without the consent of Weaver, who was alleged to be in possession and with the intent to deprive the said Aldridge Lumber Company of the value thereof, etc. The point made by appellant is that the indictment should allege some value of the property intended to be stolen. This is not necessary. With reference to burglary, a forcible entry of a house for the purpose of committing theft, the value of the property is immaterial, and if a party breaks a house with intent to commit theft it is unnecessary to allege the value of such property.
3. The only ground of the motion for new trial is that the court erred in failing to grant the application for continuance. As before stated, the evidence is not before us and we are unable to review this question. The refusal of a continuance will not be revised in the absence of the evidence adduced upon the trial.
Finding no reversible error in the record, the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.