
    Leonario Rodriguez v. The State.
    
      No. 4005.
    Decided May 5, 1909.
    1. —Theft of a Horse—Charge of Court—Recent Possession—Explanation.
    Where upon trial for theft of a horse the evidence raised the issue of defendant’s explanation of the possession of the property recently stolen, and the charge of the court on this issue was in compliance with the decisions of this court there was no error. Following Wheeler v. State, 34 Texas Crim. Rep., 350.
    2. —Same—Charges Refused—Motion for New Trial—Statement of Pacts.
    Where the refusal of special instructions requested by the appellant is complained of in the motion for new trial, the same cannot be considered on appeal in the absence of a statement of facts.
    Appeal from the District Court of Wilson. Tried below before the Hon. E. A. Stevens.
    Appeal from a conviction of theft of a horse; penalty, two years confinement in the penitentiary.
    The charge on explanation of defendant of property recently stolen, found in his possession, was as follows: “If you believe from the evidence that the property described in the indictment had been stolen from the said Eldia Kendrick, and that recently thereafter the defendant was found in possession thereof, and when his possession was first questioned he made an explanation of how he came by it, and you believe that such explanation is reasonable, and probably true, and accounted for the defendant’s possession in a manner consistent with his innocence, then you will consider such explanation as true, and acquit the defendant. If, on the contra^, you believe such explanation was unreasonable, and did not .account for the defendant’s possession in a manner consistent with innocence, or if you believe that the same accounted for his possession in a manner consistent with his innocence, hut that the State has shown the falsity thereof, then you will take the possession of the defendant, together with his explanation in connection with all the other facts and circumstances, if any in evidence, and if you believe the defendant is guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt, you will so find; otherwise you will acquit the defendant.”
    No brief on file for appellant.
    
      
      F. J. McCord, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.
   DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.

This case is before us without a statement of the facts, nor are there any bills of exception contained in the record.

Appellant urges error as having been committed by the court in charging the law with reference to appellant’s explanation of the property alleged to have been stolen recently after the theft. The charge is in compliance with the decisions of this court, and seems to be almost an exact reproduction of the charge set out in Wheeler v. State, 34 Texas Crim. Rep., 350. We are of opinion the charge is sufficient on that question.

Error is urged also to the refusal of the court to present to the jury special instructions requested by appellant. These matters are presented in the motion for new trial. In regard to the latter insistence of appellant, it may be sufficient to state that the evidence is not before us.

As these matters are presented, we find no error in the judgment, and it is ordered that it be affirmed.

Affirmed.  