
    SPRINGER v. STATE.
    (No. 9696.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Jan. 13, 1926.)
    1. Burglary &wkey;>38-r-In prosecution for burglary, permitting witness to testify that person in whose possession stolen goods were found said he and defendant were living at same house held proper. .
    In prosecution for burglary, permitting witness to testify that person in whose possession stolen goods were .found said he and defendant were living at same house held not error, where other evidence showed such to be the fact.
    2. Criminal law <&wkey;4l9, 420(12) — In prosecution for burglary, check offered in evidence by defendant contending that it would enable him to fix date, prior to alleged crime, on which-he was using property claimed to have been stolen, held properly excluded as hearsay.
    In prosecution for burglary, check offered in evidence by defendant to enable him to fix date, prior to alleged crime, on which he was using property claimed to have been stolen, held properly excluded as being hearsay, where no witness testified as to knowing anything about the cheek.
    3. Criminal law <®=ollll(3) — One, accepting bill of exceptions with qualification of court, is bound by it.
    One, accepting bill of exceptions-with qualification of court, is bound by it.
    4. Criminal law &wkey;>35l(8) — In prosecution for burglary, testimony showing conversation witness had with defendant, wherein defendant requested witness to swear he lent defendant part of money to buy property claimed to-have been stolen, held iproperly admitted.
    In prosecution for burglary, testimony showing conversation witness had with defendant, wherein defendant told witness he was in trouble about property claimed to have been stolen, and wanted witness to swear he lent him part of money with which to buy property, held properly admitted.
    5. Criminal law <&wkey;-l 120(4) — Admitting testimony of conversation of witness, not set out-in bill of exceptions, will not be deemed error, on appeal.
    Court, on appeal, will not hold to be error admission of testimony showing conversation of witness with counsel for accused, when conversation is not set out in bill of exceptions.
    Commissioners’ Decision.
    Appeal from District Court, Rockwall! County; Joel R. Bond, Judge.
    Clint Springer was convicted of burglary,, and he'appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Ed B. Freeman, of Rockwall, 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 burglary; the punishment is two years in the penitentiary.

The st^te relied on recent possession off the alleged stolen property, as well as on-proof of incriminating statements made by the appellant and many other circumstances-to' show guilt. It seems that the goods were-actually found in the possession of one Andrews. Andrews, however, testified that he-was hauling for the appellant at the time the-alleged stolen harness were found in his possession. The evidence seems to be ample to-show that Andrews and the appellant were-working together at the time the property-was found, and there is no merit in appellant’s contention that the court erred in permitting a witness to say that Andrews said' that he and appellant were living at the same-' house. This seems to have been amply established by other testimony not objected to,, and Andrews’ own testimony, offered by the-appellant, shows that he received the alleged stolen property from the appellant.

There is no merit in appellant’s contention-that the court erred in permitting the sheriff to testify as to statements made to him out of the presence of the appellant by the appellant’s young son, C. G! Springer. This testimony was clearly admissible for impeachment purposes and was limited to this purpose by the court in his charge.

The burglary was alleged to have-been committed about the 28th of February,, and appellant offered in evidence a check dated February 13, wbicb was purported to have been given by one L. L. Dyer to one Burch for a cow. It is appellant’s contention that this check would have enabled him to have fixed a date, prior to the alleged burglary, on which he was using the harness in question. The court certified in his qualification to the bill that no one identified the cheek as being given by Dyer to Burch, and that no witness testified that he knew anything about the check, and that the court was not advised as to who executed the .check, if anyone, and that the same was clearly hearsay. The appellant accepted this bill with this qualification on it and is bound by it. Under the qualification, the check was clearly hearsay and its exclusion does not constitute error.

Bill of exceptions No. 4 complains at the court’s action in permitting the witness Charlie Langley to testify to a conversation he had with the appellant, in which the appellant told him he was in trouble about those harness he got down in the bottom, and wanted the witness to help him out, and wanted him to swear that he lent him part of the money to buy these harness, and the witness also testified that he had a conversation with appellant’s counsel, but the bill fails to show of what this conversation consisted. The testimony as to the conversation between the witness and appellant was clearly admissible as a circumstance showing appellant’s guilt, and the conversation between the witness and appellant’s attorney, not being set out in the bill of exceptions, cannot be held to be error.

We have carefully examined the record in the case, and are of the opinion that no reversible error is shown therein. The facts are amply sufficient to support the verdict, and the judgment is in all things affirmed.

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. 
      cg^jFor other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     