
    MITCHELL v. STATE.
    (No. 10698.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Feb. 23, 1927.
    Rehearing Denied April 6, 1927.)
    1. Larceny <@=368(0— Evidence held for jury, in prosecution for theft by bailee of automobile rented in one city'and found in another.
    Evidence that defendant leased automobile and that it was afterwards found in another city held sufficient to take case to jury, in prosecution for theft by bailee.
    2. Criminal law <@=>1091 (2)— Soip bill of exceptions, containing paragraphs of motion for new trial and not stating specific errors, held defective.
    Sole bill of exceptions in record, setting out briefly all proceedings of trial to which appellant objected and containing all the paragraphs of motion for new trial, but not stating specifically the errors complained of, held defective and not in keeping with statutes and decisions pertaining thereto.
    3. Criminal- law <@=>554 — Jury was not bound to accept defendant’s uncontradicted testimony, in prosecution for theft by bailees
    The jury was not bound to accept as true the uncontradicted testimony of defendant, in prosecution for theft by bailee of rented automobile.
    ■Commissioners’ Decision.
    Appeal from Dallas Criminal District Court No. 2; C. A. Pippen, Judge.
    Roger Mitchell, alias Jimmie Evans, was convicted of theft by bailee, and lie appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Terrell & Miller, of Dallas, for appellant.
    William McCraw, Dist. Atty., of Dallas, Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., of Austin, and Robt M. Lyles, Asst. State’s Atty., of Groes-beck, for the State.
   BAKER, J.

The appellant was convicted of theft by bailee, and his punishment assessed at 2 years in the penitentiary.

The record discloses that the appellant and one J. H. Hill rented a Ford automobile from the prosecuting witness Goettinger, in the city of Dallas, on the 23d day of June, 1925; and that, after the delivery of said automobile to them by the prosecuting witness, they were joined by two other companions, and all four then drove away in-the car. The car was afterwards located by the officers in the city of Houston. The appellant took the stand and admitted renting the automobile-in question, but defended upon the ground that before leaving the city of Dallas he became aware of the fact that Hill and his other companions contemplated taking the car to Houston, against his advice and over his protest, whereupon he abandoned them at the viaduct in Dallas and caught a ride to Houston with strangers. It is also contended by the appellant that, his evidence as to abandoning the car and his companions being uncontradicted, the jury was in error in returning a verdict against him and the court should have granted him a new trial by reason thereof.

There is only one bill of exception in the record, and it, in effect, sets out in a brief way all of the proceedings of the trial to which appellant objected and contains each and all the paragraphs of the motion for new trial therein. None of said paragraphs or sections in this bill sufficiently set out, within themselves,' the specific errors complained of. Bills of this character are considered by the court as defective and not in keeping with the statutes and decisions pertaining thereto. Nugent v. State, 101 Tex. Cr. R. 86, 273 S. W. 598.

The appellant’s contention to the effect that the verdict of the jury was contrary to the evidence and not supported thereby, in that the state did not contradict his testimony relative to abandoning his companions and said car in the city of Dallas and not going with them to Houston, is against the decisions of this court. This court has frequently held that the jury is not bound to accept as true the uneontradicted testimony of defendants and interested witnesses. Hawkins v. State, 99 Tex. Cr. R. 569, 270 S. W. 1025; Horak v. State, 100 Tex. Cr. R. 485, 273 S. W. 601.

After a careful examination of the record, and finding no error therein, we are of the opinion that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed, and it is accordingly so ordered.

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.

LATTIMORE, J.

Practically the only question raised by appellant is the insufficiency of the testimony to support the judgment. We have again reviewed the facts. It is in no way denied that appellant rented the alleged stolen-car for use only in Dallas county, and upon a written agreement to return it to the lessor. It was undisputed that it was recovered in Houston, and there is not the slightest suggestion from any source that appellant did not have guilty connection with the removal of the car from Dallas cbunty to Harris county, save the testimony of appellant himself, and as stated by us in the original opinion, the jury is in no wise obligated to accept statements of the accused. We believe the evidence amply supports the conviction, and that the case ■was correctly affirmed.

The motion for rehearing will be overruled. 
      <@=>Por other eases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     