
    Jack Coleman v. The State.
    No. 4885.
    Decided February 6, 1918.
    Burglary—Charge of Court—Sufficiency of the Evidence.
    Where the objections to the court’s charge were not fundamental in their character, and the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction thereunder, there was no reversible error.
    Appeal from the District Court of Harrison. Tried below before the Hon. P. 0. Beard.
    Appeal from a conviction of burglary; penalty, three years imprisonment in the penitentiary.
    The opinion states the case.'
    
      Y. D Harrison, for appellant.
    On question of the court’s charge on principals: Trimble v. State, 33 Texas Crim. Rep., 397; Sessions v. State, 37 id., 58; Burrell v. State, 18 Texas, 713.
    
      E. B. Hendricks, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.
   DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was convicted of burglary, his punishment being assessed at three years confinement in the penitentiary.

There are no bills of exception in the record, nor were any exceptions reserved to the charge. The charge is criticised, however, in the motion for new trial, but nothing is presented of such a nature as could bring in review the court’s action. There is no error fundamental in its character mentioned. It is contended that the evidence is not sufficient. The State’s case places appellant in such relation 'to the burglary that the jury was justified in reaching the conclusion that he assisted in the burglary, and if he did not enter the house, was present aiding and encouraging those who went in. He took the stand and testified in his own behalf. Even under his testimony we think the facts are sufficient to show that he was a principal.

The judgment will be affirmed. Affirmed.  