
    COOPER v. STATE.
    (No. 11183.)
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Nov. 23, 1927.
    Rehearing Denied Jan. 25, 1928.
    1. Criminal law <§=>! 144(14) — In absence of objections, appellate court must assume instructions to jury were acceptable to defendant.
    In criminal prosecution' in absence of objections to instructions to jury, appellate court must assume they were acceptable to defendant.
    On Motion for Rehearing.
    2. Larceny <§=362(2)— Evidence that defendant did not have authority from owner to kill and appropriate animal held to support conviction of theft.
    Evidence that defendant did not have authority from owner of alleged stolen animal to slaughter and appropriate it held to support conviction for theft thereof.
    3. Criminal law <§=>741 (I), 742(1) — Matters pertaining to facts, such as credibility *of witnesses and weight of their testimony, is ex clusively for jury, except where no testimony supports verdict.
    In matters pertaining to facts, such as credibility of witnesses and weight to be given their testimony, jury’s decision is conclusive, except where there is no testimony supporting it.
    4. Criminal law <§=>747 — Conflicts in testimony are always for jury.
    Mere conflicts in testimony are always for jury.
    Appeal from District Court, Chambers County; Thos. B. Coe, Judge.
    Hugh Cooper was convicted of the theft of cattle, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Wander & Williamson, of Houston, for appellant.
    A. A. Dawson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.
   HAWKINS, J.

Appellant is under conviction for theft of cattle alleged to have belonged to H. C. Icet. Punishment is 2 years in the penitentiary.

No complaint of any ruling of the court during the trial is brought forward in the record. In the absence of objections we must assume that the instructions to the jury were acceptable to appellant. The only question which can be reviewed is the sufficiency of the evidence, and no detailed statement of that is called for.

That appellant butchered two head of Icet’s cattle and sold the meat is not controverted. Appellant did not testify himself, but through witnesses raised the issue that Icet had authorized the killing of the animals. This question was properly submitted to the jury, and the finding was in favor of the state.

The evidence is amply sufficient to support the conviction.

The judgment is affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

DATTIMORE, J.

Appellant insists that the testimony is not strong enough to justify the jury in finding that he did not have authority.from the owner of the alleged-stolen animal to slaughter and appropriate same. We have again reviewed the facts and cannot agree with this contention. The circumstances of the slaughter of the animal were somewhat peculiar. It was shot in the woods by appellant and then carried some-eight or nine miles to a point where it was. skinned and cut up. It was shot just before night, and the skinning, cutting up, etc., were-in the nighttime. The owner of the alleged stolen animal testified positively denying that he gave appellant permission to kill and appropriate same. Appellant and two witnesses testified to the fact that such permission was given. One of these two witnesses was related to appellant.

The entire purpose and express direction of our statute is that in matters pertaining to the facts, such as the credibility of' the witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony, the jury’s decision is to be taken,, except in case there be no testimony supporting same. • Mere conflicts in testimony are always for the jury’s settlement. We do not feel justified in disturbing a verdict which, has the support this one has.

The motion for rehearing is overruled.  