
    REVIER v. STATE.
    (No. 10494.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Dec. 22, 1926.
    Rehearing Denied Jan. 19, 1927.)
    1. Jury <®=»70(12) — In prosecution for robbery, permitting amendment correcting date on return on special venire drawn to try case held not error (Code Cr. Proc. 1925, art. 597).
    -In prosecution for robbery, permitting amendment correcting date of sheriff’s return on special venire drawn to try case held not error, in view of Code Cr. Proc. 1925, art. 597, governing matter pertaining to service of such writ.
    2. Jury @=82(3) — In prosecution for robbery, that special veniremen were served by written notice, not by personal service, held not error.
    In prosecution for robbery, that special veniremen were served by written notice and not by personal service, held not error; there being no showing that there was failure of veniremen to respond.
    3. Criminal law @=>593 — In prosecution for robbery, overruling of defendant’s motion for continuance made on grounds that attorney was employed elsewhere held not error.
    In proséeution for robbery, overruling c£ defendant’s motion for continuance, made on grounds that his attorney was attending court in another county, held not error; it appearing from record that attorney so named took part in trial.
    4. Criminal law @=633(1) — In prosecution for robbery, exhibiting to jury pistols used in committing crime, prior to introduction into evidence, held not error.
    In prosecution for robbery, laying of pistols used by defendant and his confederate in committing crime upon table where they might be seen by jury before being introduced into evidence held not error.
    5. Robbery @=>23(1) — In prosecution for robbery, admission of evidence that another, previously convicted, acted with defendant in committing crime, held not error.
    In prosecution for robbery, admission of evidence that certain person acted with defendant in commission of crime held not error; fact that such person had been previously convicted not being obstacle in introducing testimony that he and defendant were present and that each exhibited pistols and acted together in committing robbery.
    6. Criminal law @=>519(3) — In prosecution for robbery, admission of written confession, objected to on ground that defendant v/as under arrest at time it was admitted, held not error.
    In prosecution for robbery, admission of written confession objected to on ground that defendant was under arrest at time it was admitted held not error; confession, as well as predicate for its introduction, being regular and in compliance with law permitting taking of written confession of one while under arrest.
    7. Criminal law @=>537 — In prosecution for robbery, statement of defendant to officer, after arrest, resulting in finding of weapons with which offense was committed, held admissible (Code Cr. Proc. 1925, art. 727).
    In prosecution for robbery, statement made by defendant to officer, after arrest, resulting in finding of weapons with which offense was committed held admissible, and not excluded by statute governing confessions, in view of Codc-Cr. Prod. 1925, art. 727.
    Appeal from Criminal District Court, Dallas County; Felix D. Robertson, Judge.
    Henry Revier was convicted of robbery, and be appeals.
    Affirmed.
    E. L. Roark, of Dallas, for appellant.
    Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., of Austin, and Robt. M. Dyles, Asst. State’s Atty., of Groesbeck, for the State.
   MORROW, P. J.

The offense is robbery; punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for a period of 10 years.

The injured party was W. H. Langley. By his testimony and that of several other witnesses the fact of the robbery was proved. In the statement of facts there also appears the written confession of the appellant.

Bill of exceptions No. 1 complains that the sheriff’s return, on the special venire drawn to try the ease as originally filed, bore the date of the 5th of February, which was an impossible date, as the writ was issued on the 5th day of March. The court was not in error in permitting the amendment correcting the date of the return. See article 597, C. C. P. 1925; also Powers v. State, 23 Tex. App. 42, 5 S. W. 153; Vernon’s Ann. C. C. P. 1925, vol. 2, p. 22, note 3.

The bill, complaining of the manner in which the veniremen were served, charges that they were served by written notice and not by personal service, shows no error, for the reason that it does not appear therefrom that there was a failure of the veniremen to respond. Brown v. State, 87 Tex. Cr. R. 261, 222 S. W. 252.

The date of the offense was the 22d of January. The arrest seems to have been made a few days later, and the trial took place on the 8th of March. Appellant‘filed a motion to continue, in which he averred that he had employed counsel on the 6th of March, being without the requisite funds at an earlier date; that the attorney employed was attending court in another county, and for that reason could not be present. It appearing from the record that the attorney named in the application took part in the trial, the bill fails to show any reason for a reversal.

The pistols used by the appellant and his confederate in committing the robbery were introduced in evidence. Prior to their introduction, they were laid upon the table where they might be seen by the jury. The complaint of the fact that they laid on the table is without merit.

There was no error in receiving the testimony to the effect that Jack Wages acted with the-appellant in the commission of the offense. The fact that Jack Wages had been previously convicted would be no obstacle in introducing testimony showing that he and the appellant were present and each exhibited pistols and acted together in committing the robbery. The same may be said of three other bills upon the same subject.

The written confession, as well as the predicate for its introduction, seems regular and in compliance with the law permitting the taking of a written confession of one while under arrest. The objection to it upon the ground that the appellant was under arrest at the time it was admitted is not tenable. Appellant was arrested two days after the robbery at the home of Jack Lanier. Upon the arrest, the officer asked the appellant where the guns were, to which he replied that they were in the dresser drawer, whereupon the officer went to the drésser drawer and found the guns which were after-wards identified upon the trial by eyewitnesses to the offense as "the pistols used by the appellant and his confederate in the commission of the crime.

The statement of the appellant to the officer after his arrest which resulted in the finding of the weapons mentioned was not inadmissible under the statute upon the subject of confessions. The facts bring it within the exception which permits the introduction of a verbal confession when accompanied by facts or circumstances which conduce to establish the guilt of the accused, such as the finding of the instrument with which he states the offense was committed. See article 727, C. C. P. 1925; also Moehler v. State, 98 Tex. Cr. R. 238, 285 S. W. 553, and precedents therein cited; Singleton v. State, 87 Tex. Cr. R. 302, 221 S. W. 610; and other cases collated in Vernon’s Ann. Tex. C. C. P. 1925, vol. 2, p. 827, note 12.

Finding no error in the record, the judgment is affirmed. 
      @=Eor other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     