
    HYDE v. STATE.
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    March 11, 1914.
    Rehearing Denied April 8, 1914.)
    1.Criminal Law (§ 742) — Trial—Questions for Juey — Accomplice.
    Evidence that a private detective did not himself suggest the commission of burglary, « but, when it was suggested to him, he seemingly assented thereto, and that during the commission of the crime he stood outside the building,1 and thereafter received a part of the stolen money, which he promptly turned over to the police, warrants submitting to the jury the question whether the detective was an accomplice, instead of instructing, as a matter of law, that he was an accomplice.
    [Ed. Note. — Por other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent- Dig. §§ 1098. 1138, 1719-1721; Dec. Dig. § 742.]
    2.Ceiminal Law (§ 507%) — Evidence—Acj complice — Detective.
    In such a case, where the accused endeavored to show that the detective was an accomplice, evidence as to his employment, and that he made daily reports to his employers, and promptly reported the burglary, was admissible.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 1097, 1264; Dec. Dig. § 507%.]
    3.Criminal Law (§ 1136) — Appeal — Parties Entitled to Allege Error — Joint Defendants.
    One accused of a crime jointly with another, and who alone appealed from the conviction, cannot complain of error in the admission of letters written by the defendant, where the court instructed the jury that the letters could be considered as evidence only against the writer, and not against the codefendant.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 3005, 3006; Dec. Dig. § 1136.]
    Appeal from District Court, Williamson County; Chas. A. Wilcox, Judge.
    R. R. Hyde was convicted of burglary, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    J. F. Taulbee, of Georgetown, for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
    
      
      For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig.' & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep’r Indexes
    
   I-IARPER, J.

Appellant was prosecuted, and convicted of burglary.

Appellant’s main insistence in this court is that the evidence, as a matter of law, makes G. C. Galloway an accomplice, and the court erred in not so instructing the jury, and erred in submitting that issue to the jury for their determination. Galloway is a detective, and was employed through the Pinkerton agency to ferret out some crimes that had been committed, in Taylor. He testified, and the facts justify a finding that in the capacity of a detective, and in all the steps he took, it was with a-view to the detection of crime. He originated no offense; but, when this burglary was suggested, he seemingly assented thereto, but participated no further in the commission of the offense than to stand idly by alongside of the building, and accepted part of the stolen money,' which money he promptly turned over to the officers, reporting the matter to them, and identified the two who did commit it. Whether or not such acts would constitute him an accomplice has been recently thoroughly discussed by this court in the case of Holmes v. State, 156 S. W. 1172, and Minter v. State, 159 S. W. 300. In this case the court did not err in submitting that question to the jury, and the evidence will sustain a finding that Galloway is not an accomplice. Therefore the evidence fully supports the verdict.

The appellant, throughout the case, earnestly labored to show that Galloway was an accomplice; therefore there was no error in admitting testimony as to his employment as a detective; that he daily made reports of Ms actions to Ms employers, and promptly reported tlie burglary and delivered the money to the mayor; and the bills seeking to present objections to bis testimony present no error.

Three letters alleged to have been written by Claud Atchison were admitted in evidence. Appellant and Atchison were jointly indicted, charged with this offense, and jointly tried. Atchison’s case is not before us on appeal. When the letters were introduced, the court instructed the jury they could not be considered as evidence against this defendant, but were only admitted as against Atchison, and could be considered by the jury alone in passing on the guilt or innocence of Atchison. Under such circumstances the appellant has no ground for complaint, whatever view we might take of the matter, if Atchison’s case was before us. The letters would not and could not have had any bearing with the jury in passing on appellant’s guilt, for there is nothing in-them that would have any tendency to show Ms guilt.

We have read carefully the charge of the court, and considered the objections made thereto. The charge as given was a full, fair, and admirable presentation of the law as applicable to the evidence in this case, and the only special charges requested were embodied in the charge of the court.

Judgment is affirmed.  