
    USELTON v. STATE.
    (No. 9155.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    May 27, 1925.)
    1. Criminal law &wkey;>l 166(9) — Error cannot be predicated on denial of continuance for absent witnesses who testified.
    Error cannot be predicated on overruling application for continuance for absence of witnesses, who appeared and testified on trial.
    2. Criminal law <&wkey;784(4)— Charge on circumstantial evidence held proper.
    Charge on circumstantial evidence, containing test of exclusion, telling jury that circumstances taken together must be of conclusive nature, leading on the whole to a satisfactory conclusion, and producing in effect a reasonable and moral certainty that accused and no other committed offense, held proper.
    3. Criminal law t&wkey;>553 — Reconciliation of conflicting testimony is for jury.
    Reconciliation of the conflicts in testimony of accused and another witness is for jury.
    Appeal from Criminal District Court No. 2, Dallas County; C. A. Pippen, Judge.
    C. E. Uselton was convicted of receiving and concealing stolen property, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Mays, Chaney & Dailey, of Dallas, for appellant.
    Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover O Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.
   LATTIMORE, J.

Conviction in criminal district court No. 2 of Dallas county of receiving and concealing stolen property; punishment, two years in penitentiary.

There are two bills of exception, one complaining of the overruling of an application for continuance. The alleged absent witnesses appeared and testified upon the trial. The other complaint is directed at the charge of the court on circumstantial evidence. Said charge appears to be in conformity with approved precedents, contains the test of exclusion, and tells the jury that the circumstances taken together must be of a conclusive nature, leading, on the whole to a satisfactory conclusion and' producing in effect a reasonable and moral certainty that the accused and no other eo'mmitted the offense.

Appellant was found in possession of a recently stolen automobile, which he claimed to have purchased from one William. Williams took the stand and testified that the car he sold appellant was a different car, and that he did not sell him the one in question. A reconciliation of the conflicts in the testimony is for the jury. They have resolved them in this case against appellant.

The judgment itall be affirmed. 
      @=For otter cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     