
    CHASE v. STATE.
    (No. 9970.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    March 10, 1926.)
    1. Criminal law <&wkey;598(2).
    Application, for continuance, not showing diligence, was properly refused, where absent testimony is not believed to be true or material.
    2. Criminal law <&wkey;>655(i).
    Remarks of court to defendant, in absence of jury, do not .constitute reversible error.
    3. Criminal law <&wkey;l036(l).
    Matters introduced without objection do not present error.
    4. Criminal law &wkey;>IH9(2) — Asking defendant as to last time he had seen party claimed by him to have induced him to take automobile, not shown to have been answered, held not error.
    In prosecution for theft of automobile, asking defendant as to last time he had seen person alleged by him to have induced .him to take car, held not error, where it was not shown that question was answered.
    Appeal from Criminal District Court, Dallas County; Felix D. Robertson, Judge.
    Joyce Chase was convicted of theft, and he appeals. Affirmed.
    W. H. Adkins and W. F. Hintze, both of Dallas, for appellant.
    Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., of Austin, and Nat Gentry, Jr., Asst. State’s Atty., of Tyler, for the State.
   LATTIMORE, J.

Conviction in criminal district court of Dallas county of theft; punishment fixed at two years in the penitentiary.

The charge was theft of an automobile. Appellant sought a continuance, but the application is not sufficient on the question Of diligence, nor is the absent testimony believed to be true or material in the light of the evidence adduced.

There are four bills of exception, each of which is qualified by the trial court, and, as qualified, presents no error. In one complaint is made of the remarks of the court to appellant, but the qualification makes plain the fact that the remarks were addressed to appellant in the absence of the jury. In one of the others it is shown by the explanation that most of the matters set up as objected to were introduced without objection. Another, bill complains of the asking of appellant while on the witness stand as to the last time he had seen Joe Evans. It is not shown that the question was answered. Evans was the party claimed by appellant to have induced him to take said car, and, if connected with the transaction at all, would be a codefendant.

We have considered each ground of objection, and believe appellant to have had a fair trial, and that the jury were fully warranted in returning a verdict of guilty.

Finding no error in the record, the judgment will be affirmed.  