
    ROCKHOLT v. STATE.
    (No. 11662.)
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    May 23, 1928.
    1. Criminal law <§=>1087(2) — Matter presented by bill of exceptions, not shown by record to have been filed, was not reviewable.
    Pailure of record to show that bill of exception was filed or filed in time prevented review of matter presented by the bill.
    2. Larceny <§=>65 — Evidence held to sustain conviction for theft of property over value of $50.
    Evidence showing that stolen harness was found in defendant’s possession shortly after property, was missed held to sustain conviction for theft of property over value of $50.
    Commissioners’ Decision.
    Appeal from District Court, Hansford County; W. C. Strong, Special Judge. '
    Luther William Ro'ckholt was convicted of the theft of property over the value of $50, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Art Sehlofman, of Dalhart, for áppellant.
    A. A. Dawson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.
   CHRISTIAN, J.

The offense is theft of property over the value of $50; the punishment confinement in the penitentiary for two years.

Appellant brings forward one bill of exception which does not appear to have been filed in the trial court. Unless said bill was a filed paper, and was filed within the time prescribed by law, this court would be unauthorized to consider it. The record failing to show its filing, we are not permitted under the decisions of this court to review the matter presented by said bill of exception. Crosby v. State, 98 Tex. Cr. R. 75, 263 S. W. 916; Childress v. State, 92 Tex. Cr. R. 215, 241 S. W. 1029; Oliver v. State, 58 Tex. Cr. R. 50, 124 S. W. 637.

There were no exceptions to the court’s charge. The evidence is sufficient to show the theft by appellant from one W. W. Wilmoth of three sets of harness of the value of $150. The record discloses that shortly after the stolen property was missed by the owner appellant and two others were found in possession thereof. Appellant failed to testify in his own behalf.

The evidence being sufficient to sustain the conviction, the judgment is affirmed.

PER CURIAM. The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court. 
      
      =>Por other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests ana Indexes
     