
    HAAG v. STATE.
    (No. 7492.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Feb. 28, 1923.
    Rehearing Denied March 21, 1923.)
    Malicious mischief ¡@=>9 — Evidence held' sufficient to warrant conviction for defacing “public building’’ while confined in jail.
    In a prosecution for defacing a “public building” as defined by Pen. Code 1911, art. 840, jails of municipalities are public buildings, and evidence that one who, while confined in a city jail, broke the windows, broke down the bunk, and set fire to the bedding, held sufficient to warrant a conviction.
    [Ed. Note. — For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, First and Second Series, Public Building.)
    Appeal from Williamson County Court; F. D. Love, Judge.
    Fred Haag was convicted of the offense of defacing a public building, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    W. C. Wofford, of Taylor, for appellant.
    R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the .State.
   LATTIMORE, J.

Appellant was convicted in the county court of Williamson county of the offense of defacing a public building, and! his punishment fixed at a fine of $5.

The record is before us without a single bill of exceptions. It appears from the statement of facts that on the 15th of May, 1922, appellant was arrested and placed in the city jail of Taylor. Said city jail was a public building, and belonged to said city. The next morning when the officers went to said city jail they found that the windows had been broken, and a bunk that was fastened to the wall was broken down from the wall, and the quilts and mattress of said bunk had been set on fire and partially burned. There were no other' occupants of the city jail on that night. A city employee, who heard noises in the city jail during the night and went to ascertain the cause, found appellant and talked to him, and he said that appellant seemed to be very mad at the officers. The witness stated that he noticed the windows in the city jail the evening before appellant was placed in the bastile, and the glass was in them and they were all right, and when he went into the jail the next morning the glass was broken and the bed which was fastened to the wall with, heavy iron hinges had been broken loose. We are only called upon to pass on the sufficiency of this testimony to make out appellant’s guilt of the offense defined by article 840 of our Penal Code, which provides that if any person shall willfully injure or deface any public building, or the furniture therein, in this state, he shall be fined not less than five nor more than five hundred dollars. By the provisions of article 841, P. C., jails of municipalities are in terms made public buildings.

In our opinion the evidence sufficiently shows the guilt of appellant, and the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

Appellant insists that the evidence was not sufficient to show him guilty of willfully injuring and defacing .the furniture of the city jail at Taylor on the occasion charged. There is nothing in the' record to indicate that other officers in the city of Taylor might have arrested other parties and put them in jail on the night in question. The only officers who did testify stated that there were no other persons put in the jail on that night. That the bunk or bed in the jail was broken loose from its fastenings to the wall, as well as fire set to the mattress on the bed, seems without controversy.

Being unable to agree with the contention of learned counsel for appellant, the motion for rehearing will be overruled.  