Eubank v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Eubank v. State

218 S.W.2d 1002, 153 Tex. Crim. 178, 1949 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1115

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedMarch 23, 1949

DocketNo. 24312

StatusPublished

This text of 218 S.W.2d 1002 (Eubank v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Eubank v. State, 218 S.W.2d 1002, 153 Tex. Crim. 178, 1949 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1115 (Tex. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The conviction is for burglary with a sentence of six years in the penitentiary.

The state proved the presence of appellant and his companion, Tommy Martin, together in the town of Woodville on the night of the burglary. The next day the same two parties were taken from a bus as they stopped at Lufkin. The sheriff of Angelina County arrested them on information by telephone from the sheriff of Tyler County. The two men had stopped the bus along the road between stations while traveling together and admitted that they were together. After their arrest they produced some articles taken from a drugstore in Wood-ville in a burglary the previous night. Appellant had two watches which he offered to give to the sheriff. They had some narcotics that were identified by the druggist as having his price mark written in his own handwriting and coming from his store. They also took the sheriff to a place on the railroad where they had deposited more drugs. As a result of the information given to the sheriff, other packages were recovered and they were identified by the druggist in the same manner. The defendant offered no evidence. We find in the record no exception to the court’s charge and there are no bills of exception.

A brief filed by the attorney of record in this case, Mr. Barton, explains that he was not the trial attorney but says the man who was employed to represent this appellant had abandoned the case and, for some reason, had failed to prepare the bills of exception. He complains of the admissibility of the testimony of the two sheriffs who testified in the case. In the absence of bills of exception the matter is not before us for consideration.

We find no reversible error and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The conviction is for burglary with a sentence of six years in the penitentiary.

The state proved the presence of appellant and his companion, Tommy Martin, together in the town of Woodville on the night of the burglary. The next day the same two parties were taken from a bus as they stopped at Lufkin. The sheriff of Angelina County arrested them on information by telephone from the sheriff of Tyler County. The two men had stopped the bus along the road between stations while traveling together and admitted that they were together. After their arrest they produced some articles taken from a drugstore in Wood-ville in a burglary the previous night. Appellant had two watches which he offered to give to the sheriff. They had some narcotics that were identified by the druggist as having his price mark written in his own handwriting and coming from his store. They also took the sheriff to a place on the railroad where they had deposited more drugs. As a result of the information given to the sheriff, other packages were recovered and they were identified by the druggist in the same manner. The defendant offered no evidence. We find in the record no exception to the court’s charge and there are no bills of exception.

A brief filed by the attorney of record in this case, Mr. Barton, explains that he was not the trial attorney but says the man who was employed to represent this appellant had abandoned the case and, for some reason, had failed to prepare the bills of exception. He complains of the admissibility of the testimony of the two sheriffs who testified in the case. In the absence of bills of exception the matter is not before us for consideration.

We find no reversible error and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

218 S.W.2d 1002, 153 Tex. Crim. 178, 1949 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1115, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eubank-v-state-texcrimapp-1949.