
    Wesley, alias West, v. The State.
    No. 2441.
    Decided April 15, 1903.
    1. —Theft—Ownership—Partnership—Indictment.
    Where an indictment for theft charges ownership in a firm, which does not negative the want of consent of each owner, it is sufficient.
    2. —Same—Variance.
    , On a trial for theft, where the indictment alleged that, one of the owners was T. N. Me., there was no variance, the evidence showing there were two T. N. Mc.’s, and that the property was taken from T. N. Me., Jr.
    3. —Absence of Statement of Facts—Errors as to Charge.
    Where there is no statement of facts which can be considered, errors as to the charge of the court can not be revised.
    Appeal from the County Court of McLennan. Tried below before Hon. G. B. Gerald, County Judge.
    Appeal from a conviction of petty theft; penalty, one year’s confinement in the county jail.
    Ho statement of facts which could be considered, because not properly authenticated by the judge’s approval.
    Ho brief for appellant.
    
      Hoiuard Martin, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.
   DAVIDSOH, Presiding Judge.

Conviction for theft, the penalty assessed being one year’s confinement in the county jail.

The indictment is questioned by motion in arrest of judgment because it does not sufficiently negative the consent of the owners. It is charged that the ownership was in the firm of McMullen & Marshall, consisting of T. H. McMullen and Hed Marshall. The proof shows there, were two T. H. McMullens,■ and the McMullen mentioned in the indictment under the evidence was “Jr.,” and that by reason of this fact there is a variance; and also that the general allegation that the property was taken without the consent of the owners is not sufficient; that the indictment should have specifically negatived the consent of each owner. The indictment is sufficient with reference to the allegation of want of consent of the owners. Williams v. State, 19 Texas Crim. App., 276. There is no variance by reason of the fact that the alleged owner was “Jr.,” and not “Sr.” Windom v. State, 6 Texas Ct. Rep., 908.

With reference to those matters which pertain to the facts or grow out of supposed errors committed by the court in the charge, the evidence can not be considered. The statement of facts is in the same condition as in Hess v. State, 30 Texas Crim. App., 437. And see, also, Morse v. State, 39 Texas Crim. Rep., 566; Wilson v. State, 34 Texas Crim. Rep., 355.

As the record is presented, no error is shown, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.  