
    COLEMAN v. STATE.
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Nov. 13, 1912.)
    1. Criminal Law (§ 404)—:Larceny (§ 51*) —Evidence—Possession oe Property.
    Evidence in a larceny case that a sack of money was taken from the defendant at the time of his arrest, and that such property tallied with that stolen, was properly admitted together with the sack and money.
    [Ed. Note.—For other eases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 873, 891-893, 1457; Dee. Dig. § 404;* Larceny, Cent. Dig. §§ 144-146; Dec. Dig. § 51.*]
    2. Criminal Law (§ 359)—Evidence—In-dictment oe Another.
    Evidence of the indictment of another for the larceny with which defendant was charged was properly excluded when not admissible on the grounds stated by defendant for offering it.
    [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 789, 790; Dec. Dig. § 359.]
    3.Criminal Law (§ 1090)—Appeal and Error—Bill oe Exceptions—Motion eor New Trial.
    In the absence of a bill of exceptions, the grounds stated in a motion for a new trial cannot be reviewed.
    [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2653, 2789, 2803-2827, 2927, 2928, 2948, 3204; Dee. Dig. § 1090.]
    4. Criminal Law (§§ 1064, 1090)—Appeal and Error—Objection—Presentation.
    An objection to the instructions, not presented by the motion for a new trial or by bill of exceptions, could not be reviewed.
    [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2653, 2676-2684, 2789, 2S03-2827, 2927, 2928, 2948, 3204; Dec. Dig §§ 1064, 1090.] ’
    5. Criminal Law (§ 1172)—Harmless Error-Instructions.
    Where the instructions fully and fairly presented every issue, a mere clerical error therein was harmless.
    [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 3128, 3154-3157, 3159-3163, 3169; Dee. Dig. § 1172.]
    Appeal from District Court, Galveston County; Clay S. Briggs, Judge.
    Levi Coleman was convicted of theft, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    O. S. York, of Galveston, for appellant. Miles Crowley, Co. Atty., and Henry O’Dell, Asst. Co. Atty., both of Galveston, Walter E. Cranford, Asst. Co. Atty., of Ralls, and C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
    
      
      For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep’r Indexes
    
   HARPER, J.

Appellant was prosecuted and convicted of theft, and his punishment assessed at two years’ confinement in the penitentiary.

When appellant was arrested something over $200 was taken off his person, as was also a cloth bag or sack. The officer making the arrest testified to taking the property off of appellant. The prosecuting witness positively identified the sack as the one in which he kept the money when it was stolen, among other things, being able to identify it ¡by the way it was sewed, and its being stitched, where mended, with both white and black thread; he also testified to the denomination of the bills lost by him, and this tallied with the money taken off of appellant. The court did not err in admitting all this testimony, and the sack and money in evidence.

The defendant offered in evidence an indictment against one Nelse Jefferson, in which the said Jefferson was charged with this same offense, and when objected to by the state appellant stated his reasons for desiring the introduction of the indictment. The court sustained the objection, to which appellant excepted. The court did not err in excluding the testimony, as it was not admissible on the grounds stated by appellant; and, as qualified by the court in approving the bill, no error is presented.

There are several grounds stated in the motion for new trial we cannot consider as no bills were reserved, for under such circumstances the grounds in the motion for new trial do not verify the fact that such proceedings occurred nor testimony introduced.

The ¡charge fully and fairly presents every issue in the case, and we cannot consider those complaints of the charge raised for the first time in this court. The law recfuires that such matters must be presented in the motion for new trial or by bill of exception, and, when not presented in either way, we will not discuss the matter complained of. In this instance, it being but a mere clerical error, if it had been presented in the motion for new trial, it is not such an error as would necessitate a reversal of the case.

The judgment is affirmed.  