Hamilton v. State (77 Tex. Crim. 143, 1915)

HARPER, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of burglary, and his punishment assessed at two years confinement m the State penitentiary.

There are no bills of exception in the record, and no exception was reserved to the charge of the court as given, consequently the only question we can review is, will the testimony sustain a conviction?

B. T. Mayes testifies -to the loss of an electric fan; that it was taken without his consent, and the facts show that whoever took it is guilty of burglary. The facts relied on by the State to show that appellant took it are, that on the day of the loss of the fan appellant stopped and talked to Mr. Mayes, and could have and doubtless did see the fan. This was about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, and the fan was stolen b¿tween dark and 12 o’clock that night. Mayes says he had scratched his initials, R. T. M., on the blade of his fan with a knife. That the fan the officers recovered looks like the same size fan; that there was an “R” on the blade; that the next letter looked like a “T” scratched over, and there was an