
    GORDON v. STATE.
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    June 21, 1911.)
    Ceiminal Law (§ 761*) — Trial — Instkuc-tions on Weight of Evidence.
    The quoted words, “that is, with the defendant’s guilt,” iu the statement in a charge, “These necessary facts must be consistent with each other and with the main facts sought to be established, that is, with the defendant’s guilt, and, when taken together, must be of a conclusive nature leading on the whole,” etc., do not make the charge one on the weight of evidence; it not being thereby assumed or charged that defendant is guilty.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 1731-1771; Dec. Dig. § 761.*]
    Appeal from District Court, Angelina County; James I. Perkins, Judge.
    Rufe Gordon appeals from a conviction.
    Affirmed.
    C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   DAVIDSON, P. X

Appellant was convicted of the theft of $75 United States paper currency; his punishment being assessed at two years’ confinement in the penitentiary.

The record does not contain a bill of exception, nor is it accompanied by a statement of facts. All of the grounds set up in the motion for a new trial relate to the sufficiency of the evidence except .one, and that is with'reference to a charge on circumstantial evidence. This charge seems to- be in the form that has been approved frequently by this court, and is the charge usually given. The contention of appellant is that there is an expression in the charge which made it a charge on the weight of evidence, in that the court used in connection with the statement, “These necessary facts must be consistent with each other and with the main fact sought to be established, that is, with the defendant’s guilt, and, when taken together, must be of a conclusive nature, leading on the whole,’’ etc. The criticism is that the expression above quoted, as follows, “that is, with the defendant’s guilt,” is a charge on the weight of evidence. The main fact sought to be established is defendant’s guilt. This does not assume that defendant is guilty, nor so instruct the jury; but it informs the jury that these necessary facts must be consistent with each other,. and with the main fact sought to be established, that is, the defendant’s guilt. We think there is no merit in this contention.

The judgment is affirmed.  