
    Helen K. HADLEY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
    No. 28430.
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    June 27, 1956.
    Rehearing Denied Oct. 10, 1956.
    
      B. F. Patterson, San Antonio, E. Colley Sullivan, Dallas, for appellant.
    ’ Hubert "W. Green,1 Jr., Crim. Dist. Atty., Elbert Hooper, Jr., Asst. Crim. Dist. Atty.’, San Antonio, and Leon' B. Douglas, State’s ‘Atty., Austin, for the State.
   DAVIDSON, Jucfec..

This is a conviction for theft ofVman-’s suit of the value in excess of $50; the punishment, four'years in'the penitentiary.

-The state’s testimony .shows that appellant was found in the possession of a suit, of clothes which had been recently stolen from Joske’s in San Antonio. The circumstances abundantly authorize the conclusion that appellant was a “shoplifter.’.’ and that, she acquired the suit by theft.

.When the jury was ready to. report, appellant was -not- in the courtroom and could not be found. The trial- court, received the verdict 'of the.j.ury in her absence. :

.. It, is insisted; that the -receipt of the verdict in appellant’s absence was ..prohibited by Aft. 692, C.C.P.

It,will be noted that said, article requires that the defendant in a felony case “must be present when the verdict is read unless his absence is wilful. or voluntary.”

Here, appellant was absent from the courtroom of'her own volition, in so far as this record -is concerned;' there is nothing to .show that her'absence was other than voluntary on ‘her part;

We are unable to agree that the trial' court erred in receiving the verdict- in appellant’s absence. -. See: Slaughter v. State, 151 Tex.Cr.R., 156, 205. S.W.2d 781.

Other questions presented have been examined,' and are ' overruled without discussion.

The judgment is affirmed.

On Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing

’■ BELCHER, Commissioner.

Appellant insists that the evidence-is insufficient to,.show--that the, man’s suit alleged to have been stolen was of the value of more than $50 at the time of the alleged taking.

Mr.- Everts, buyer and- manager of the-men’-s clothing department-'at Joske’s, testified that he' p'aid $60 for’the suit in question - which- retailed -to the consumer for $100i This testimony -was sufficient to show that the suit was of the value of more than $50. >

The complaint of the district attorney’s argument to the jury that “an eye dropper and a spoon on which the handle was bent into a curve” together with the remark “you know what they usé that for” cannot be sustained as the first statement is supported -by the evidence admitted without objection and the latter remark is a reasonable deduction from such ■evidence.

The motion for rehearing is overruled.

Opinion approved -by the Court.  