
    F. Fennell v. State.
    No. 2190.
    Decided January 8, 1913.
    Rehearing denied February 5, 1913.
    Theft — Sufficiency of the Evidence — Explanation.
    Where, upon trial of theft, the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction, and the court’s charge on explanation of defendant’s possession applied to the facts, there was no error.
    [Rehearing denied February 5, 1913. — Reporter.]
    Appeal from the District Court of Bexar. Tried below before the Hon. Edward Dwyer.
    Appeal from a conviction of theft; penalty, five years’ imprisonment in the penitentiary.
    The opinion states the case.
    No brief on file for appellant.
    
      C. E. Lane, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.
   HARPER, Judge.

— Appellant was prosecuted and convicted of theft, and his punishment assessed at five years confinement in the State penitentiary.

The evidence amply supports the verdict of the jury, and there is no merit in the contention that it is insufficient, and it was not necessary for the court to charge on explanation of the possession of the recently stolen property. The first explanation given was a confession of his guilt, which confession was properly admitted in evidence. The facts not only would justify the finding that it was freely and voluntarily made, but a portion of the stolen property was found at the place stated by appellant in his confession. "While it is true that after having confessed to himself stealing the property, on the trial of the case defendant testified he had purchased the property from another person, whose name he could not recall, but whom he stated he would know if he should see him again. The court instructed the jury that if defendant purchased the property, or the jury had a reasonable doubt of that fact, to acquit him. This fully presented his defense, and the motion for a new trial points out no error.

The judgment is affirmed. Affirmed.  