Full opinion text
KRUEGER, Judge. The offense is theft of property over the value of $50; the punishment assessed is confinement in the state penitentiary for a term of two years. It appears from the record that Mr. G. A. Couch, who was engaged in the sale of electrical appliances in Texarkana, employed the appellant about the 1st day of June, 1937, as sales manager of his business at a salary of $150 per month, plus 2 per cent, on sale of major appliances. On the night of August 24, appellant entered the store of Mr. Couch, took $35 from the' cash register, $220.45 from the safe, and disappeared. He was later apprehended in Dallas, and brought hack to Bowie and tried. He did not testify or offer any affirmative defense. By hill of exception No. 2, he complains" of certain testimony given hy the sheriff.' This hill is in question and answer form without á certificate hy the trial court that it was necessary to be in such form. Under article 760, C.C.P., as amended, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P. art. 760, we cannot consider the same. See, also, Garcia v. State, 117 Tex.Cr.R. 190, 36 S.W.2d 173; Bible v. State, 117 Tex.Cr.R. 31, 36 S.W. 2d 753; Harmon v. State, 130 Tex.Cr.R 223, 93 S.W.2d 437. Appellant has urged a number of objections to the court’s charge. We have carefully reviewed the charge in the light of the objections addressed thereto and have reached the conclusion that the charge fairly and adequately applied the law to the facts. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. PER CURIAM. The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court.