
    Bob POLLOCK v. STATE.
    (No. 9813.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Jan. 27, 1926.
    Rehearing Denied Feb. 24, 1926.)
    Commissioners’ Decision.
    Appeal from District Court, Navarro County; Hawkins Scarborough, Judge.
    Albert R. Young, of Corsicana, for appellant.
    Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., of Austin, and Nat Gentry, Jr., Asst. State’s Atty,, of Tyler, for tbe State.
   BERRY,. J.

The offense is theft of property over the value of $50, and the punishment is five years in the penitentiary.

There are no bills of exception contained in the record. The appellant has filed a very lengthy motion for new trial, and has attempted to support the allegations contained therein by ex parte affidavits. There is nothing raised in the motion for a new trial that can be considered by us under tbe unbroken rules of this court in tbe absence of bills of exception properly preserving the matters presented.

The evidence is entirely sufficient to support the verdict, and, there being no errors manifested by this record, the judgment is in all things 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.

HAWKINS, J.

In view of appellant’s motion we have again examined the statement of facts and think the evidence supports the judgment. In the condition of the record — that is, without objection to the charge, no special charges requested, and no bills of exception — we are of opinion the case has been properly decided. •

The motion for rehearing is overruled. 
      <§=»For other cases see same topic and KBY-NXJMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     