
    CRISWELL v. STATE.
    (No. 6003.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Feb. 9, 1921.
    Rehearing Denied March 2, 1921.)
    Burglary <&wkey;42(3)— Evidence held to sustain conviction.
    Evidence that money taken from house at time of burglary was found on defendant’s premises in an envelope which had been addressed to him, the morning after the crime had been committed, that defendant had been in the vicinity of the premises about the time that the crime was committed, and that he had known that the money was in the house, held sufficient to sustain conviction of burglary.
    Appeal from District Court, Polk County; L. D. Guinn, Judge.
    Ike Criswell was convicted of burglary, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    P. R. Rowe, of Livingston, for appellant.
    Alvin M. Owsley, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   LATTIMORE, J.

Appellant was convicted of burglary of a private residence and his punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for five years.

The alleged burglary was of the private residence of one Roach, who had $54 which he kept in a pocketbook in a tool box in said residence. Roach testified that he saw this money about 5 o’clock on the afternoon before the night of its loss. He also said that a few days before the' burglary appellant saw this money in his possession. The next morning the money was gone. Appellant was at the Roach house the night the money was missed at about dark, and saw Roach leave home, accompanied by his wife and appellant’s wife, going to church, from which some members of the party returned about 10:30 o’clock that night. Roach’s wife testified that when she came back from church she came back by appellant’s home, and that he opened the door and let her and his wife in. A brother of Roach’s wife was sleeping in the Roach home during the absence of Roach and his wife at church, and this boy testified that he was awakened while they were gone by a noise as if some one were stumbling over a chair, but he was scared and did not get up. At once upon discovering his loss the next morning, Roach notified officers, who searched appellant’s premises during the day and found in a tin tobacco box, thrust into the ground by the side of a post of the appellant’s garden fence, the money of Roach, which he identified in the presence of appellant and his wife, neither of whom made any claim to same. When this money was found in appellant’s garden in said tobacco box it was wrapped in an envelope addressed to Ike Criswell, New Willard, Tex.; that being appellant’s address. The sheriff .of the county testified that while they were searching appellant’s house he appeared to be perfectly easy, but when they searched his garden he walked the floor and watched the searchers. On appellant’s behalf he testified, denying the state’s case throughout, and said he did not know how the money came in his garden. The record contains no bills of exceptions, and there is no brief on file for the appellant. The motion for new trial raises the sufficiency of the evidence in various ways, which we have carefully examined, but find ourselves unable to assent to the proposition that the evidence was not cogent enough to justify the jury in their verdict. It was a case of circumstantial evidence, and the law of this issue was submitted by the trial court. The fact of the appellant’s knowledge of the presence of this money in Roach’s possession, his being at the premises about dark, and his presence not accounted for until 10:30 o’clock that night, the fact of some one being in the house in the meantime, the finding of the money on appellant’s premises and in an envelope addressed to him the next morning after its loss — all of these are of sufficient weight, we think, to justify the jury in their conclusion.

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

On Motion for Rehearing.

Appellant makes only the contention that the evidence does not support the verdict. It would be useless for us to cite the long line of uniform decisions by this court affirming the doctrine that possession of recently stolen property unexplained is sufficient to justify the conviction of a person in whose possession such property is found of the theft thereof, or of burglary of the house in which such property was situated. In the instant case, in addition to the fact of possession are the added circumstances of proof of the knowledge of appellant of the whereabouts of the alleged stolen money prior to its disappearance, and also of the further fact that when same was found on appellant’s premises the morning after it was taken it was wrapped in an envelope addressed to appellant. This seems so amply sufficient to justify the jury in their conclusion of his guilt that we will not further discuss it.

Appellant’s motion is overruled. 
      
      fe»For other cases see same topic and KE3T-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     