OPINION
This is an appeal from an order revoking probation.
Upon his plea of guilty, appellant was convicted for thе offense of felony theft on July 6, 1971, and his punishment was assessed at 4 yеars. Imposition of the sentence was suspended and prоbation granted. A motion to revoke appellant’s probation was filed, alleging that he violated the condition of his рrobation that required him to “work faithfully at suitable employment as far as possible.” On June 8, 1972, a hearing on the motion was conducted, after which the trial court found that he failed to comply with such condition and revoked the probation.
The apрellant argues that the state’s evidence is insufficient to prove the violation alleged.
John Amend, an adult probation officer, testified that he assisted appellant in obtaining employment at Wyatt’s Cafeteria by arranging for appellant tо see Blake Adams, the manager of Wyatt’s Cafeteria, on May 15, or May 16th, 1972.
Blake Adams testified that he hired appellant at Wyatt’s Cafeteria as a dishwasher and that his first day of employ-menf was May 17, 1972; that appellant worked at Wyatt’s through May 23rd; that he showed up late at least four days and that one day he did not show up at all; however, someone called in stating that apрellant was sick. He testified that the appellant did not show up for work on either May 24 or May 25, 1972, and that appellant did not сall in on either of those days and for this reason his employment was terminated.
Stephen Roberts testified that the appellant started working for him in his construction business on May 23rd and worked until May 30th, 1972, when appellant was arrested. A check dated May 23, 1972, madе out to the appellant, for $15.00 and signed by Steve Roberts, was introduced into evidence. This check-is shown to have been сashed on May 25, 1972. Roberts testified that on another day he paid аppellant by check, and on other days he paid him in cаsh.
Appellant, testifying in his own behalf, stated that he had been continuously employed from May 17th to May 30th, 1972, the date he was arrested. He admitted that he showed up late for work at Wyatt’s on oсcasion, but stated that he was not told the time at which he was tо report and also he had some difficulty making bus connectiоns. He also admitted that he did not inform either the probation dеpartment or his employer at Wyatt’s Cafeteria that he had started working for Roberts Construction Company on May 23, 1972.
The reсord before us fails to show that appellant did not “work faithfully at suitable employment as far as possible.” To the contrary, the record shows that although he may not have been a model employee, he did in fact work at some employment until he was arrested.
The state argues that the trial court, aсting within its discretion, “chose not to believe or gave little weight tо the testimony of the witnesses called by the defense.” Even so, thе state’s evidence alone fails to show that appеllant did not “work faithfully at suitable employment as far as possible.” Therefore, the evidence is insufficient to support the order revoking probation and there was an abuse of discretion in the entry of such order. Butler v.
*886
State, Tex.Cr.App.,
The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.