
    ANDERSON v. STATE.
    (No. 12621.)
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    June 5, 1929.
    Rehearing Denied June 26, 1929.
    G. H. Crane, of Dallas, for appellant.
    A. A. Dawson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for tbe State.
   MARTIN, J.

Offense, felony theft; penalty, three years in tbe penitentiary.

Prosecuting witness lost about 1,090 pounds of seed cotton. Tbe cotton was shown to have been in possession of appellant, who sold same to the Murray Gin Company of Hallas. The said cotton was identified by the presence in it of a pair of woman’s teds, shown to have been placed there by a negro girl, who had been picking cotton for prosecuting witness. It was shown that at the time appellant sold this cotton he said his name was Bob Allen, and that the cotton was raised near the W. S. Kirby farm. Check for same was made out to Bob Allen. Appellant claims that he was hauling the cotton for his brother-in-law and a Mexican, and says that he told the buyer that it was from the Bob Allen farm. He denied giving his name as Bob'Allen as well also as the statement of where the cotton was raised. He admitted, however, that he hauled the cotton to the gin and sold same. .

The only point presented is the alleged insufficiency of the evidence. We think an.inference of guilt in this case from the circumstances of recent possession was justified, especially since there were present circumstances and facts which authorized the jury to disbelieve the accused’s explanation of his possession. Such evidence seems to be sufficient under our authorities. Roberts v. State, 17 Tex. App. 82; Teague v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 31 S. W. 401; Odell v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 71 S. W. 971; Roberts v. State, 60 Tex. Cr. R. 24, 129 S. W. 611; Stephens v. State, 69 Tex. Cr. R. 437, 154 S. W. 996.

The judgment is affirmed.

PER CURIAM. The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court.

On Motion for Rehearing.

MORROW, P. J.

A re-examination of the record'in-the light of the appellant’s motion for rehearing leaves us of the opinion that the proper disposition of the ease was made upon the original hearing.

The motion for rehearing is therefore overruled.  