
    HAGOOD v. STATE.
    (No. 9810.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Jan. 20, 1926.)
    1. Criminal law <&wkey;829 (4) — Refusal to give special charge defining adverse possession held not error, in view of charge given.
    In a prosecution for cutting down and carrying away a tree from land not belonging to accused but claimed by witness under the 10-year statute of limitations, refusal to give special charges defining adverse possession held not error, where the court in its charge defined such possession in accordance with applicable statute (Complete, Tex. St. 1920, or Vernon’s Sayles’ Ann. Civ. St. 1914, arts. 5680, 5681).
    2. Criminal law <&wkey;829 (3) — Refusal to give requested special charge stating under what conditions accused would be entitled to acquittal held not error.
    In prosecution for cutting down*and carrying away a tree from land which witness claimed under 10-year statute of limitations, refusal to give requested special charge stating under what conditions accused would be entitled to an acquittal held not error, in view of main charge that a conviction could only be had in the event the tree was taken from land owned by witness, and that the jury must believe that beyond a reasonable doubt before they could convict accused.
    Commissioners’ Decision.
    Appeal from Lamar County Court; W. Dewey Lawrence, Judge.
    A. B. Hagood was convicted of knowingly cutting down and carrying away a certain tree from land not his own, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Sturgeon & Sturgeon, of Paris, for appellant.
    Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., of Austin, and Nat Gentry, Jr., Asst. State’s Atty., of Tyler, for the State.
   BERRY, J.

The offense is knowingly cutting down and carrying away a certain tree from land not his own but belonging to one Joe Young, and the punishment is a fine of $20.

There are no bills of exceptions in the record and no objections filed to the charge of the court. The record discloses that the land on which the tree was cut was claimed by the alleged owner under the 10-year statute of limitations (Vernon’s Sayles’ Ann. Civ. St. 1914, art. 5675), and the appellant offered his special charges 2 and 3, in which he attempted to define adverse possession; but we think the term was properly defined in the court’s main charge and that there was no error in refusing the special charges offered. The court in his main charge defined peaceable and adverse possession in accordance with articles 56S0 and 5681, Complete Tex. St. 1920, or Vernon’s Sayles’ Ann. Civ. St. 1914. We think the court’s main charge was a clearer enunciation of the law than that contained in the special charges offered by the appellant which the court refused to give.

Appellant’s special charge No. 1 requested the court to instruct the jury that unless they believed that. Joe Young was the owner, of the land, or if they had a reasonable doubt on this issue, to acquit. In presenting the case in his main charge the court instructed the jury that they could only convict in the event the tree was taken from land owned by the said Joe Young, and that they must believe this beyond a reasonable doubt before they would be authorized to convict. This charge clearly presented the matter raised by appellant in his special charge No. 1.

Finding no error in the record, and believing that the facts are sufficient to support the verdict, 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. 
      &wkey;3For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     