
    Jean Clark v. The State.
    No. 4402.
    Decided February 17, 1909.
    1. —Theft of Horse—Charge of Court—Recent Possession.
    Where upon trial for theft of a horse the defendant offered an explanation when first arrested with the horse, the court properly charged on possession of property recently stolen.
    2. —Same—Charge of Court—Fraudulent Intent.
    Upon trial for theft of a horse where the court charged on every possible phase of the law applicable to the facts, and the defendant requested a special charge on the question of intent, consent and permanent appropriation, which was given, there was no error.
    3. —Same—Continuance—Bill of Exceptions.
    Where appellant’s motion for continuance is not accompanied with any bill of exceptions the same can not be considered on appeal.
    Appeal from the District Court of Grimes. Tried below before the Hon. S. W. Dean.
    Appeal from a conviction of theft of a horse; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary.
    The opinion states the case.
    F. J. McCord, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.
   BROOKS, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of horse theft and his punishment assessed at two years confinement in the penitentiary.

Appellant’s first complaint is, the court erred in his charge on recent possession of stolen property, for the reason that the evidence raised no such issue, was not the law of the case, and was calculated to confuse and mislead the jury. The charge on recent possession of stolen property is a proper charge and has frequently been approved by this court. Appellant did offer an explanation when first arrested with the horse, and it would have been error not to have so charged.

Appellant’s second grounds of the motion complains that the court erred in not charging the jury, that the taking and using an animal, without the consent of the owner, would not be theft, unless same was taken with the intention of permanently appropriating same to the use and benefit of _ the defendant. Appellant tendered the court a special charge on this matter which was given. We have carefully examined the charge of the court, and it is in all respects a proper charge covering all the law applicable to tha facts of this case. To whatever extent it did not do so, in giving appellant’s special charges every possible phase of the law applicable to the evidence was submitted.

Appellant’s motion for continuance' is not accompanied with any bill of exceptions, and same can not be considered. The evidence in all things supports the verdict, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.  