
    PAGE v. STATE.
    No. 13066.
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Feb. 26, 1930.
    Rehearing Denied March 19, 1930.
    Adams & Hamilton, of Jasper, for appellant.
    A. A. Dawson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.
   MARTIN, J.

Offense, hog theft; penalty two years in the penitentiary.

Prosecuting witness owned fourteen head of hogs, some of them marked. They ranged about tbe premises of prosecuting witness. Appellant lived some distance away in another range. On the Sunday afternoon in question prosecuting witness heard dogs running and going out into the woods from whence the sound came; he found appellant and two other negroes in possession of three shoats, which apparently came from his bunch of fourteen head. Two of them had been killed, and one of them was alive and had been placed in a sack. They were identified by prosecuting witness as bis own. .The dead hogs were taken away by appellant and tbe other parties. Appellant claimed the hogs as the property of his father’s estate.

The identity of the hogs was the only issue, and this has been resolved against appellant by the jury, and in our opinion the finding is sustained by the evidence.

Two bills of exception attempt to present the question of error of the court in permitting the district attorney to extend the inquiry into appellant’s reputation to a time subsequent to the commission of the offense. The bills are perhaps insufficient to.present the matter. However, we note that appellant had asked for suspended sentence and tendered proof of his good character. Under such circumstances the inquiry into such a subject might be extended to embrace the time of the trial. Mason v. State, 90 Tex. Cr. R. 560, 236 S. W. 93; Williams v. State, 83 Tex. Cr. R. 26, 201 S. W. 188. As against the objection urged, tbe testimony was admissible.

The judgment is affirmed.

PER OURIAM.

Tbe foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by tbe Judges of tie Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by tbe court.

On Motion for Rehearing.

MORROW, P. J.

We are unable to assent to the correctness of the appellant’s contention that his bills of exceptions reveal the introduction of proof of specific acts of misconduct against his reputation. By his witness, Wallace Morgan, appellant proved that the witness had known the appellant all his life and was acquainted with his general reputation in the community for honesty and fair dealing, and that it was good. On cross-examination, he said in substance that, since this prosecution’ began, he had heard that the appellant was accused of stealing ,hogs. The witness said: “I never heard of this darkey being in any trouble until this matter arose.”

No transgression of the practice outlined in Moore v. State, 91 Tex. Or. R. 118, 237 S. W. 931, 932, and other cases collated by the appellant is shown upon the record.

The motion is overruled.  