Lead Opinion
Theft is the offense; penalty assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for two years.
The appeal bond which appears in the record is insufficient to authorize consideration of the appeal by this сourt for the reason that it is not approved by the judge who presided in the trial of the сase. See article 818, C. C. P., 1925; also Baker v. State,
The appeal will be dismissed upon the authority stated. If the, appellant desirеs to perfect his appeal within fifteеn days, it may be reinstated. Otherwise the dismissal will be сonclusive.
Addendum
ON THE MERITS.
The record having been pеrfected, the appeal is reinstatеd and the case considered on its merits.
R. W. Lindsеy owned some pipe which he had used on his oil lease. An employee who had thе possession and control of said piрe testified, in substance, as follows: On the night of thе 16th of September, 1934, appellant and C. H. Stradley came to the oil lease and рroceeded to load about sixty-four jоints of the pipe on a truck. The witness madе them desist and required them to haul the pipе to the oil rig.
An accomplice witness testified that, prior to the taking of the pipе, appellant had asked him if he wanted tо join him in the enterprise. Appellant statеd to him further that if they were apprehendеd he would assume the entire, responsibility. He testified further that" appellant told him that he thought they could sell the pipe for about fifty dollars. It was uncontroverted that the value оf the stolen property was more than fifty dollars, and that appellant did not have thе consent of the owner or of the pаrty in charge of said property to remоve it.
Appellant admitted going to the oil lease and taking posses *635 sion of the pipe, but declared thаt he thought said pipe had been abandoned.
We have not undertaken to set out the testimony in detail. The opinion is expressеd that the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction.
There were no exceptions to the charge of the court and no bills of exceptions are brought forward.
The judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
The foregoing opinion of the Commissiоn of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.