
    GUNTER v. STATE.
    (No. 6243.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    June 8, 1921.
    Rehearing Denied Oct. 12, 1921.)
    I.Criminal law <®=>l 159(3) — Conviction on conflicting evidence not disturbed.
    In a prosecution for robbery, in which defendant claimed an alibi, and the conflict of evidence was settled by the jury, the Court of Criminal Appeals will not undertake to say that the evidence did not sustain conviction, where two credible witnesses identified defendant.'
    2. Robbery <§=>17 (3) — Description of property in indictment held sufficient.
    Description, in indictment charging robbery, of the property taken as a specified amount ini money, held sufficient.
    3. Robbery <§=>17(4) — Value of property taken need not be stated in indictment.
    The value of property taken in a robbery need not be stated in the indictment.
    4. Criminal lav/ <®=>4I3(I) — Defendant’s statements, when declining to escape from county jail, not admissible.
    Testimony as to defendant’s statements in declining to escape with other prisoners from county jail after his arrest held properly excluded, being self-serving.
    Appeal from District Court, Stephens County; G. O. Bateman, Judge.
    * Wilburn Gunter was convicted of robbery, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Tom Leach, D. M. Doyle, and E. W. Bounds, both of Fort Worth, for appellant.
    It. H. Hamilton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   LATTIMORE, J.

Appellant was convicted in the district court of Stephens county of .robbery, and his punishment fixed at seven years in the penitentiary.

Appellant and Joe Adams were members of a party at a camp in Stephens county. Most, if not all, of the men were workers on oil wells. On the afternoon before the alleged robbery, appellant, Adams, Tyler, the alleged injured party, and several other men were engaged in a game of poker, and money was displayed by Tyler and a tuan named May and others. This was October 19, 1920. During that night a call was made for men to come to a certain well and do some casing. Adams was on the crew called, but excused himself and did not go. Appellant also remained in the camp. The evidence showed that the men who responded to said call worked at the "particular job until about midnight on the 20th; that about 6 o’clock on the afternoon of the 20th, Tyler had occasion to go back to camp, and there saw appellant and Adams, who asked him about what time the party expected to get through, and he told them about 12 o’clock that night. About the time mentioned, and as the party of men who had been engaged in said'casing were returning to camp in an automobile, they were held up by two men at tbe point of pistols and robbed of various amounts of money. Tbe indictment in tbe instant case charged robbery of Tyler, from whom tbe testimony showed they obtained $41.

On tbe trial Tyler and May positively identified both Adams and appellant by their voices and seeing their faces during tbe robbery. As the party in tbe automobile was leaving the scene, Carpenter, one of the men in the automobile, said it sounded libe Joe Adams’ voice, and some one else said it was Joe and this appellant. Lee, one of the men in said car, testified he was excited, but when the fact was mentioned he thought he recognized Adams’ voice. The defense was an alibi; appellant’s brother, sister-in-law, nephew, and some other witnesses corroborating substantially appellant’s own evidence that he was. in the tent of his brother-in-law at the time of'said robbery. The companion case of Adams v. State (No. 6242) 233 S. W. 844, is this day decided, and many of the questions raised in the record now before us are discussed and disposed of in the opinion in that case and will not be further referred to. That opinion disposes of the state-» ments of Carpenter and others directly after the alleged robbery, and also of the objections to what transpired in the poker game on the day preceding said robbery.

The conflict of evidence as to appellant’s presence and participation in the robbery was settled by the jury, and we cannot undertake to say that the verdict is not supported. Two witnesses, apparently credible, testified positively to their identification of appellant as one of the robbers.

A number of bills of exception were taken, which are not discussed in appellant’s brief; but we have examined each of same, and find none of them containing error, for which reason we conclude same were not here urged by able counsel representing appellant.

The four special charges refused contained nothing not in the main charge. A description in the indictment of the property alleged to have been taken in the robbery as $41 in money was sufficient, and proof of such fact met the requirements of the law. The value of the property taken in a robbery case is not necessary to be stated in the indictment. These questions have been settled in many decisions.

That appellant declined to escapé with other prisoners from the county jail after his arrest herein, together with what he said at said time, was properly rejected, when offered in evidence by appellant, as same was purely self-serving.

No error appearing in the record, the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed. 
      tg=>For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes ■
     