1. Burglary — Evidence.
On a trial for burglary, evidence is competent and admissible which tends to identify a pistol found in possession of a codefendant as one taken from the burglarized house. It was also pertinent as tending to establish the burglary and theft and identify the burglars.
2. Admission of Evidence — Bill of Exceptions — Practice on Appeal.
Without a bill of exceptions is reserved to the admission of testimony, the court on appeal will not consider assigned errors in reference to the same though mentioned in the motion for new trial.
HENDERSON, JUDGE.
Appellant was convicted of burglary, and his punishment assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for a term of two years; hence this appeal.
On the trial the defendant objected to the testimony of Otis Bryant, on the ground that same was not pertinent as against him; that it did not in anywise tend to show his connection with the alleged burglary. The testimony of Bryant tended to show the identity of a pistol taken from the house alleged to have been burglarized, and found in the possession of one of the defendants. We think said testimony was pertinent, as tending to establish the burglary and theft, and also to identify the party who committed said burglary.
There is no bill of exceptions the admission of the testimony in regard to the snuff, and consequently we can not notice what is said in the motion for a new trial or in the assignment of errors in this respect.
We have examined the record carefully, and in our opinion the evidence supports the verdict. The charge of the court was fair and impartial, covering all the case. The judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Hum, Presiding Judge, absent.