
    Hal Wallace v. The State.
    No. 203.
    Decided December 1, 1909.
    Burglary — Evidence—Theft.
    Upon trial for burglary, testimony that the defendant had been acquitted of the theft of the alleged goods was not admissible. Following Smith v. State, 22 Texas Crim. App., 350, and other cases.
    Appeal from the District Court of Bexar. Tried below before the Hon. Edward Dwyer.
    Appeal from a conviction of burglary; penalty, five years imprisonment in the penitentiary.
    The opinion states the case.
    Ho brief on file for appellant.
    
      F. J. McCord, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.
   BROOKS, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of burglary, and his punishment assessed at five years confinement in the penitentiary. •

Appellant in a bill of exceptions complains the court refused to permit appellant to prove he had been acquitted by a jury for theft of the goods that were exhibited to the jury in this case. This would not avail appellant and would not be jeopardy. See Smith v. State, 22 Texas Crim. App., 350; Rust v. State, 31 Texas Crim. Rep., 75. We find no exception to the charge of the court. The evidence, we think, is sufficient, and. the judgment is in all things affirmed.

Affirmed.  