
    WILLIAMS v. STATE.
    (No. 10074.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    March 10, 1926.
    Rehearing Denied April 21, 1926.)
    1. Criminal law <S=o508 (I )• — Testimony by accomplice that defendants slept on mattress taken from burglarized house held not error.
    In prosecution for burglary, admission of testimony by accomplice that defendant slept on a mattress taken from burglarized house held not error.
    2. Criminal law 11 (6) — Possession of recently stolen property held sufficient corroboration of testimony by accomplice, and to justify conviction.
    Possession of recently stolen property presents sufficient corroboration of testimony by accomplice that defendant sat in car while companion burglarized house, and that they carried stolen property away and used same, and justifies conviction.
    (®=sFor other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
    Appeal from District Court, Stonewall Comity; Bruce W. Bryant, Judge.
    A. O. Williams was convicted of burglary, an<f he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Lon Brooks, of Anson, for appellant.
    Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., of Austin, and Nat Gentry, Jr., Asst. State’s Atty., of Tyler, for the State.
   LATTIMORE, J.

Conviction in district court of Stonewall county of burglary; punishment fixed at eight years in the penitentiary.

The home of Farrow was burglarized and a quantity of personal property taken. Shortly thereafter the property was found in a house occupied by appellant, another man, and a woman. Said parties were present when the property was located, hut seem to have made no statement, though a movement of appellant toward the bed. where a pistol was found is in evidence. The house so occupied consisted of three rooms, two below and one above. Most o'f the stolen property was found in the downstairs bedroom. Yiola King, the woman who was in company with appellant, was used as a witness by the state and testified to the fact of the burglary. Sbe said that sbe and tbe two men went to tbe burglarized bouse in a car together; that sbe and appellant sat in tbe car just across tbe road while their companion entered the house and made two trips, bringing to tbe car tbe loot;, that together they carried the articles taken from said house to the place they od-cupied; and that they were using it up to the .time the officers came; that she and appellant occupied the downstairs bedroom.

There are two bills of exception in the record, one complaining of the action of the. court in permitting Viola King to testify that appellant slept on a mattress taken from the burglarized house, the other of which appears to be multifarious, presenting appellant’s complaint of three separate matters, each of which, however, we conceive to present no error even if the bill could be considered. We are not in accord with the contention in bill No. 1/

Appellant, Skirlock, and Viola King being found in possession of the alleged stolen property recently after same was taken, we think, presents sufficient corroboration of tbe testimony of the accomplice King, and justified the jury in- their verdict of guilty.

Finding no error in the record, the judgment will be affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

In view of appellant’s insistence we have again reviewed the facts for the purpose of determining the sufficiency of the corroboration of the accomplice. The testimony of said accomplice made out the state’s case completely, and practically showed a conspiracy between herself, appellant, and another, the fulfillment of which seemed to include thefts and burglaries. Sbe testified that tbe property acquired by herself and tbe other two as tbe result of theft was being used by herself and appellant at the time of their arrest. There was no question but that this witness was amply corroborated, and the presence of a large quantity of stolen property in the three-room house occupied by herself and her companions was shown without dispute. We have reviewed the Russell Case, 218 S. W. 1049, 86 Tex. Cr. R. 609, cited by appellant. No accomplice testified in that case, and the question was not as to the sufficiency of the corroboration. We are unable to make application of tbe bolding in that case to tbe instant case.

Believing tbe case was properly decided on original presentation, tbe motion for rehearing will be overruled.  