
    BLALOCK v. STATE.
    (No. 9913.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Feb. 24, 1926.)
    Criminal law &wkey;>5l8(,l) — Admitting testimony of sheriff as to oral confession by accused^ who had not been warned, held reversible error (Code Cr. Proc. 1925, art. 727).
    In prosecution for theft of automobile, admission of testimony of sheriff that accused, after he was arrested, and without being warned, stated to another who was found with him that they might ’ just as well have put automobile in house as to put it where they did, was reversible error, under Code Cr. Proc. 1925, art. 727.
    Commissioners’ Decision.
    Appeal from District Court, San Jacinto County; J. L. Manry, Judge.
    Dock Blalock was convicted of stealing an automobile, and he appeals.
    Reversed and remanded.
    M. E. Gates, of Huntsville, and J. M. Hans-bro, of Cold Springs, 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 theft, and the punishment is 5 years in the penitentiary.

The state’s testimony shows that the automobile alleged to have been stolen was found near the residence in which appellant lived, and that appellant and another, party were present in the residence at the time the automobile was found. It was appellant’s contention that he had no connection with the original taking of the automobile, and his testimony showed that same was stolen by the party who was found present at his home' at the time the car was found.

By a proper bill of exception, appellant shows that, after he was arrested by the sheriff, and without any warning of any character by the sheriff, the sheriff was permitted to testify to a statement made by the appellant with reference to the stolen property. The substance of the sheriff’s testimony was that after he arrested the defendant, and without warning him or reducing any statement that he made to writing, the defendant called Roy Fulton, the party who was found with him at his home, and told the said Fulton that he wanted to see him, and that they might just as well have put the automobile in the house as to put it out there where they did. Appellant objected to this testimony of the sheriff, because the confession was oral, and because the defendant had not been warned, and his objections were overruled. The admission of this testimony is reversible error. Article 727, C. C. P. 1925.

The other matters complained of in appellant’s brief may not arise in the same form on another trial of the case. In any event the bills of exceptions presenting them are not in such form as justify us in reviewing them.

For the error above mentioned, the judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the cause remanded.

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.  