
    RYLEE v. STATE.
    (No. 6389.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Jan. 4, 1922.) .
    1. Criminal law <§=1091 (I) — Bill of exceptions, consisting wholly of questions and answers, not considered,
    A bill of exceptions, which consists wholly of questions and answers, will not be considered, under Code Cr. Proc. 1911, art. 744, and Rev. St. art. 2059.
    2. Criminal law <@==>829(I) — Requested charges already covered need not be given.
    It was not error to decline to give special charges, which in so far as applicable had been covered in a paragraph of the general charge, and another special charge given at the request of the accused.
    3. Robbery <&wkey;>6 — Force need not be sufficient' to overcome all possible resistance.
    To sustain a conviction of robbery by force, where an assault or actual violence is shown, the degree of force is immaterial, so long as it is sufficient to compel one to part with his property; it being unnecessary that it be sufficient to overcome any resistance which the party was capablé of offering.
    4. Robbery <&wkey;24(5) — Evidence as to force used held sufficient to sustain conviction.
    In a prosecution for robbery of two women by defendant and his companion, to whom the women had given a ride in their automobile, evidence that accused removed the rings from the fingers of one of the women, continually holding her by the arm as he did so, held sufficient showing of force to establish the offense of robbery.
    Appeal from Criminal District Court, Harris County; C. W. Robinson, Judge.
    G. H. Rylee was convicted of robbery, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    H. H. Cooper, of Houston, for appellant.
    E. T. Branch, Cr. Dist. Atty., of Houston, and R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   HAWKINS, J.

Conviction is. for robbery. Punishment five years in penitentiary. G. H. Rylee and D. C. Cogdell were jointly indicted and tried for the robbery of Mrs. R. B. Hemphill and Mrs. George Griffin. Cogdell was acquitted. Rylee was convicted and his punishment assessed at five years in the penitentiary, from which he prosecutes this appeal.

Appellant’s first bill of exceptions consists wholly of questions and answers. It will not be considered in this form. Article 744, C. C. P.; article 2059, R. S.; Yernon’s C. C. P. p. 537, note 21; No. 6407, Jetty v. State (opinion November 30, 1921) 235 S. W. 589; No. 6447, Parker v. State (opinion December 7, 1921) 238 S. W. -; Hornsby v. State (opinion December 14, 1921) 237 S. W. 940; Johnson v. State (opinion December 14, 1921) 238 S. W.-; No. 6443, McDaniel v, State (opinion December 21, 1921) 237 S. W. 292.

The court was not in error in declining to give special charges brought forward in bills of exceptions Nos. 2 and 4. In so far as • applicable, the same subject had been covered in the eighth paragraph of the general charge and the first special charge given at appellant’s request.

Complaint is made at the refusal of the court to give a special charge to the effect that before a conviction could be had the evidence must show beyond a reasonable doubt that the property was taken by “force such as to overcome the resistance of which the parties from whom .it was taken were capable of offering,” or by such threats or violence as to put them in fear of life or b.oflily injury. Contention is made in appellant’s brief that if property is taken by actual force, without engendering fear, then it must be such force as the party is incapable of resisting before it would be “robbery,” under our statute. In support of this proposition we are cited to Tones v. State, 48 Tex. Cr. R. 368, 88 S. W. 217, 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1024, 122 Am. St. Rep. 759, 13 Ann. Cas. 455; Walters v. State, 56 Tex. Cr. R. 10, 118 S. W. 543; Leonard v. State, 56 Tex. Cr. R. 307, 120 S. W. 183. The Walters Case was for “assault to rob.” It was there said:

“If the facts in this case had shown that appellant secured the diamond stud, it would have constituted theft from the person. Failing to so show, it does not constitute an assault to rob.”

In Leonard’s Case the defendant was charged with and convicted of theft by conversion. The principle asserted as being, the law in the instant case was not discussed. The Tones Case, supra, is the only one cited by appellant in which the proposition is discussed, and to our minds is against his contention. It rather supports the proposition that, an assault or actual violence being shown, then the degree of force is immaterial, so long as it is sufficient to compel one to part with his property. 34 Cyc. 1799; State v. Parsons, 44 Wash. 299, 87 Pac. 349, 7 L. R. A. (N. S.) 566, 120 Am. St. Rep. 1003, 12 Ann. Cas. 61; Williams v. State, 51 Tex. Cr. R. 361, 102 S. W. 1134, 123 Am. St. Rep. 884; Clark v. State, 87 Tex. Cr. R. 107, 220 S. W. 100; Horn v. State, 89 Tex. Cr. R. 220, 230 S. W. 693.

The state’s evidence shows that Mrs. Griffin and Mrs. Hemphill were out driving in an automobile. While going towards Rice Institute in the city of Houston they overtook appellant and his companion, and thinking they were students, permitted them to get in the car intending to give them a ride to the Institute. When they reached this place, appellant and Cogdell asked permission to ride to the end of the street. Before arriving at that point Cogdell struck Mrs. Hemphill on the head, rendering her unconscious for a time. He then took the wheel and drove the car into the country. When Mrs. Griffin attempted to get up, appellant jerked her back on the seat and demanded her rings. Upon her refusal to surrender them, he asked Cogdell for a knife, threatening to cut her fingers off. Not getting the knife, he asked for some pliers, and Mrs. Griffin, fearing he would remove the stones from the rings and render it impossible to identify them, permitted him to remove the rings from her fingers; appellant continually holding her arm until this was effected. If the testimony for the state is true, an assault was committed on both ladies, and the force used in connection therewith was' sufficient to constitute the offense of robbery.

Appellant denied any assault or violence. His evidence was to the effect that he and his companion were with the ladies by previous appointment; that they became somewhat under the influence of liquor and surrendered the jewelry to appellant of their own accord. This issue was submitted under proper instructions, and the jury declined to accept accused’s version of it.

Finding no errors in the record, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. 
      <§=For otter cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     