
    COLLINS v. STATE.
    (No. 6481.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Nov. 30, 1921.
    Rehearing Denied Jan. 11, 1922.)
    1. Criminal law <&wkey;5I I (7) — Testimony of accomplice held sufficiently corroborated by admissions of accused.
    In a prosecution for receiving stolen property, testimony of the person who stole the property, 10 gallons of gasoline, was sufficiently corroborated by admissions of accused himself to the owner of the gasoline that he had purchased the same for 10 cents a gallon and desired to settle for it with the owner.
    On Motion for Rehearing.
    2. Criminal law <&wkey; 1090(8) — Admission of evidence not considered, in absence of bill of exceptions.
    A contention that conviction should have been reversed because court erred in admitting certain evidence cannot be considered on appeal, where no bill of exceptions appears in the record bringing the point properly before the court, though mentioned in the motion for new trial.
    Appeal from Williamson County Court; F. D. Love, Judge. *.
    Charles Collins was convicted of receiving stolen property, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    W. C. Wofford,, of Taylor, for appellant.
    Dan Moody, Co. Atty., of Taylor, and R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   HAWKINS, J.

Conviction was for receiving stolen property, knowing it to have been stolen; punishment assessed was a fine of $25 and 30 days in jail.

This case is submitted upon one proposition only, viz. that the evidence is insufficient to sufficiently corroborate the testimony of the accomplice witness.

Henry Kyle was the agent for the Magnolia Petroleum Company at Hutto, Tex., in Williamson county. Upon being checked up by the auditor, it was discovered that during the months oí October, November, and December of 1920, and January of 1921, he was short several hundred gallons of gasoline from his tanks at that place. Jeff Ake was one of Kyle’s drivers, and admitted to Kyle that he had been stealing the gasoline from the tanks and selling it at 10 cents per gallon; the market price of gasoline at that time in Hutto being 25 cents per gallon. There is no question but that Ake had stolen the gasoline; he had admitted it upon the witness stand and had pleaded guilty to theft thereof. His testirnony was to the effect that he had sold appellant 10 gallons at 10 cents per gallon; that appellant would bring his can to a seed-house near the oil tanks, and that witness would fill up the can for him, which he had done twice, and that appellant would get it. When the investigation with reference to the shortage of gasoline occurred, appellant went to Mr. Kyle and admitted to him that he had bought 10 gallons of gasoline from the accomplice witness, Ake; and had paid him 10 cents per gallon, and that he wished to pay Mr. Kyle for the gasoline he had got, which he did. The offense of theft was established, not only by the admissions of the accomplice witness, but by the testimony of Kyle. That appellant received 10 gallons of gasoline from Ake in such a way and under such circumstances as to make him guilty of receiving stolen property, with a knowledge that it had been stolen, is established by the testimony of the accomplice witness. The admission of appellant to Kyle that he had received 10 gallons of gasoline from Ake and had only paid him 10 cents per gallon for it, and the settlement with Kyle for that amount of gasoline, sufficiently > corroborates the testimony of the accomplice witness, and, without question, tended to connect appellant with the commission of the offense.

The testimony being sufficient, in our minds, to meet the requirements of the law with reference to the corroboration of the accomplice witness, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

Appellant insists that this cause should be reversed, because the trial court erred in admitting evidence that several hundred gallons of gasoline had been stolen during the months of October, November, December, and January, without any attempt to connect appellant with more than 10 gallons thereof. This matter was not adverted to in the original opinion, because no bill of exceptions appears in the record bringing the point properly before us. It is mentioned in motion for new trial, but that is not sufficient to preserve the question. See note 21, Vernon’s O. O. P. p. 537; section 47, Branch’s Crim. Law.

The motion for rehearing is overruled. 
      
      &wkey;For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes ■'
     