
    ARREDONDO v. STATE.
    (No. 8478.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    June 4, 1924.)
    1. Criminal law <§=3417(2)— Statement of one charged with same theft in defendant’s absence held inadmissible against defendant.
    Statement of one charged with theft of turkeys out of defendant’s presence, after the theft, that defendant brought them to his house, was inadmissible in defendant’s trial.
    2. Larceny <§=31 — Indictment not quashed for failure to state value of stolen property. '
    Theft of property of any value, if less than $50, is a misdemeanor within county court’s jurisdiction, and a complaint and information for theft of turkeys of value less than $50 could not be quashed for failure to accurately state the value of the turkeys.
    Appeal from Fayette County Court; John 1?. Ehlinger, Judge.
    Louis Arredondo was convicted of theft of property under the value of $50, and he appeals.
    Reversed and remanded.
    Moss & Lowrey, of La Grange, for appellant.
    Tom Garrard, Staté’s Atty., and Grover C. Morris, 'Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State. ■ ■
   LATTIMORE, J.

Appellant was convicted in the county court of Fayette county of theft of property under the value of $50, and his punishment fixed at a fine of $100 and 10 days in jail.

J. W. Taylor missed a turkey hen and 63 young turkeys on July 20, 1923. A few days later he and the sheriff went to the home of one Thomas Flores, and there found 16 young turkeys in a coop and one on the outside, which Taylor and his wife and others swore were Taylor’s turkeys and part of those he had lost. The identification was by means of a hole punched between two toes on the right foot of each turkey. Appellant also raised turkej-s, and swore that he marked his turkeys by punching a hole between the toes on the right foot. No one haying knowledge seems to deny this fact. Flores lived about three miles from appellant. When Taylor and the sheriff found the turkeys at the home of Flores he told them that appellant brought those turkeys to his house. Upon the trial both Taylor and the sheriff swore to this statement made to them by Flores. By proper bill of exceptions complaint is made of the admission of this testimony from these witnesses. Clearly such admission was error. Appellant was not present. Flores was also charged with the theft of the turkeys in question, but his statements made out of the presence of appellant and after the theft, if any, would not be binding upon appellant, and would not be admissible against the latter.

Appellant’s motion to quash the complaint and information .upon the ground that same did not accurately state the value of the turkeys, was properly overruled. Theft of property of any value, if less than $50, would be a misdemeanor, and an offense of which the county court would have jurisdiction.

For the errors mentioned, the judgment will be reversed, and the cause remanded. 
      @=>For other cases see same topic and KK*-NUMBER, in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     