
    WILLIAMS v. STATE.
    (No. 10099.)
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Oct. 5, 1927.
    Rehearing Denied Jan. 11, 1928.
    1. Larceny <&wkey;>55 — Evidence held to show defendant, prior to theft of automobile, advised, aided, and encouraged in theft thereof.
    In prosecution for being an accomplice to felony theft, evidence that thief drove automobile to garage, left garage and returned with defendant, who refused to buy car, stating be had told thief to bring a 1925 model, held sufficient to authorize finding that defendant prior to theft advised, aided, and encouraged thief; it being unnecessary under the statute that the exact offense committed was the one that defendant had encouraged.
    2. Larceny <@=>50 — Testimony that defendant, while in custody, delivered to attorney money
    ' he possessed at time of offer to buy stolen automobile was admissible.
    In prosecution for being an accomplice to felony theft of automobile, where a stolen eár was driven to a garage and defendant offered $100 for it, and witnesses observed at the time defendant had $160 in money, it was not error to admit testimony that while in custody defendant was seen to deliver to his attorney about $160 in money.
    Appeal from District Court, Montague County; Vincent Stine, Judge.
    Ezra Williams was convicted of being an accomplice to felony tbeft, and be appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Chancellor & Bryan, of Bowie, for appellant.
    Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., and Robt. M. Lyles, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for tbe State.
   LATTIMORE, J.

Conviction for being an accomplice to the crime of felony tbeft; punishment, two years in the penitentiary.

Upon most of the legal questions involved in this case it is a companion case to that of Jarrott v. State (No. 10108) 1 S. W. (2d) 619, opinion this day banded down, and tbe same conclusion has been reached upon these questions as was reached in the Jarrott Case.

No testimony was introduced on'the trial on behalf of tbe appellant. Tbe state’s testimony shows without contradiction that, when Voss and Jarrot reached the town of Bowie on tbe night bf tbe taking of officer Griffin’s car, Voss drove tbe car first in one direction and then in another, according as be was told so to drive by Jarrot, until the car was finally driven into a garage. At this point Jarrot left tbe car, telling Voss that he was going to get his purchaser. He returned presently with Williams, whose clothing and general appearance indicated that be bad just gotten out of bed. Williams examined tbe coups carefully and offered Jarrot $100 for it, saying at tbe time that be bad told Jarrot to get a 1925 coupS and that tbe one before him was a 1924 model. Williams said be would, not give Jarrot $150 for a 1924 model, because be bad told him to bring a 1925 model. This conversation is detailed by Voss and Griffin. Tbe parties were in tbe presence of tbe stolen ear. They were discussing a prior agreement between them and prior directions given by this appellant to Jarrot. Williams bad in bis pocket at tbe time about $160 in money, which was later observed by tbe witnesses. We think these facts justified tbe jury in concluding appellant to have, prior to tbe time of tbe tbeft of tbe car, advised, aided, and encouraged Jar-rot in such tbeft. It is specifically provided in tbe statute, and tbe court so told tbe jury in tbe charge in this case, that it is not necessary that tbe exact offense committed be tbe one that tbe accomplice has aided, advised, and encouraged in order to make him guilty.

There is some complaint of tbe argument made by the county attorney to the jury. When tbe argument was objected to, the court instructed tbe jury not to consider it. We do not consider tbe argument as inflammatory, or as being of such character as to call for a reversal of this case.

Objection was made to testimony that, while in custody, appellant was seen to deliver to bis attorney about $160 in money. This was clearly admissible.

Finding no error in tbe record, tbe judgment will be affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

MARTIN, J.

What has been said in the disposition of appellant’s motion for rehearing in the Jarrott Case (No. 10108) 1 S. W. (2d) 619, this day overruled, applies also to appellant’s motion for rehearing in this case, and to go into tbe questions raised by him in tbe present motion for rehearing would be useless repetition.

Appellant’s motion for rebearing is overruled.

PER CURIAM. Tbe foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by tbe judges of tbe Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by tbe court. 
      <@=For other oases see same topic and KEY-NXJMBBR in all Key-Numhered Digests and Indexes
     