
    SMITH v. STATE.
    (No. 7778.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    June 6, 1923.
    Rehearing Denied. Oct. 31, 1923.)
    1. Criminal law &wkey; 1891 (11) — Bills of exceptions in question and answer form not considered.
    Under Code Cr. Proe. 1911, art. 846, bills of exception in question and answer form, unaccompanied by any statement of the trial judge that in his opinion such form is necessary to elucidate the fact or' question involved, will not be considered.
    2. Larceny &wkey;>55 — Evidence held to sustain conviction for theft of cattle.
    Evidence 'held to sustain conviction for theft of cattle.
    Appeal from District Court, Polk County; J. L. Manry, Judge.
    Jettie Smith was convicted of cattle theft; and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    J. J. Collins, of Lufkin, for appellant
    R. G. Storey, Asst Atty. Gen., for the State.
   LATTIMORE, J.

Appellant was convicted, in the district court of Polk county, of cattle theft, and his punishment fixed at two years in the penitentiary.

Our Assistant Attorney General moves to strike out appellant’s bills of exception because in question and answer form. Article 846 of our Code of Criminal Procedure contains the following:

“Provided, that such stenographer’s report when carried into the statement of facts or bills of exceptions, shall be condensed so as not to contain the questions and answers, except where, in the opinion of the judge, such questions and answers may be necessary in order to elucidate the fact or question involved.”

The bills of exception in the instant case are in question and answer form; and contain no statement of the trial judge, as indicated in the portion of thé statute above quoted, showing that it is the opinion of the trial court that the questions and answers are necessary to be set out in the bill of exceptions in order to elucidate the issue involved, nor is there anything to lead us to such conclusion. Under the holdings of this court bills of exception in question and answer form will not be considered. Jetty v. State, 90 Tex. Cr. R. 346, 235 S. W. 589; Rylee v. State, 90 Tex. Cr. R. 482, 236 S. W. 744; Romez v. State, 93 Tex. Cr. R. 92, 245 S. W. 914. The motion of the Assistant Attorney General must be granted.

Examining the statement of facts, the sufficiency of the evidence being the only question remaining, we observe that, according to the state’s case, as made out by its witnesses, appellant sold to one Yinson a yearling which belonged to the prosecuting witness. If he did' so, it is without dispute that this was without the authority qr con(sent of the owner of said yearling. Appellant denies having appropriated the yearling in question or having sold the same to Yin-son. By his witnesses he attacks the reputation of Yinson. These are all matters for the jury, and have been solved by them adversely to appellant’s contention. Looking to the state’s case, it presents testimony amply sufficient to support the conviction. .

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

On Motion for Rehearing.

HAWKINS, J.

In his motion for rehearing, appellant presents a long explanation why his bill of exception No. 3 was presented in question and answer form, and a persuasive argument that this court should consider it. A re-examination of the bill confirms our view that it presents no exception to the rule against such practice. The explanation of the learned trial judge to the bill would show no error in his ruling upon the matter complained of, if it should be considered.

The motion for rehearing is overruled.  