17 S.W. 255
BRITT 
v. 
STATE.2
Court of Appeals of Texas.
April 24, 1886.
        Appeal from district court, Freestone county; L. D. BRADLEY, Judge.
        Indictment of July Britt for theft. Verdict of guilty. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.
        The evidence showed that defendant had previously executed a bill of sale of the yearling to the firm 
of Bell & Roberts, of which G. A. Bell was a member, to whom the yearling was assigned; but defendant 
contended that he did not know that he had done so. The bill of sale was recorded by the county clerk in 
the wrong book. One Williams was a witness for the defense, and Bell was a witness for the state.
        A. G. Anderson and F. M. Etheridge, for appellant. J. H. Burts, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
        HURT, J.
        This is a conviction for the theft of a yearling, the property of W. W. Prude, or G. A. Bell.
        The first assignment is that "the court erred in not excluding, upon motion of defendant, a certain 
bill of sale," etc. There is nothing in this assignment. It appears that the bill of sale was recorded in the 
wrong book, and the motion to exclude it was upon this ground; but it also appears that when the state 
proposed to prove its contents and execution defendant admitted that he had given the bill of sale 
referred to by the witnesses. Under these facts the court very properly refused to exclude it.
        Andrew Williams was a witness, and it appears that there was some conflict between his testimony 
and that of Mr. Bell. This being the case, defendant proposed to prove his good character for truth and 
veracity. Upon objection of the district attorney, this was refused. It appears that the matters and facts in 
relation to which these witnesses differed, occurred some time after the theft; and it is also clear that 
these facts about which the witnesses differed did not have the least bearing upon the material facts of 
the case. Some time before the transaction between Williams and Bell occurred, appellant
Page 256
had sold to Williams the yearling, and received pay therefor. Whether he paid Bell any part of this sum 
could not affect the question; for, if guilty at all, this transaction could not affect the case. Nor would the 
fact that Bell received a part of this money alter the case in the least when considered with relation to the 
other facts. Under this state of case, we are of the opinion that there was no error in rejecting the 
proposed proof.
        We notice the assignments in the order presented by the brief. The second error assigned is "that 
the court erred in the fifth paragraph of the charge." The substance of this paragraph is that, if the jury 
believed from the evidence that defendant did not know that he had given or executed a bill of sale to said 
yearling, and that he himself believed at the time he sold it to Williams that it was his own property, and 
that he had the right to sell it, then he would not be guilty. We cannot perceive any objections which 
appellant could present to this charge. It was made pertinent by the evidence, and is an appropriate 
charge, presenting the theory of the defense clearly.
        We have considered and determined all the points presented by the brief of counsel for the 
appellant, but we have not confined our investigation alone to the errors assigned. After a very careful 
examination of the record, we find no such error as requires a reversal of the judgment, and it is affirmed.
---------------
Notes:
2. This case, filed April 24, 1886, is now published by request, with others, in order that the Southwestern 
Reporter may cover all cases in volume 21, Texas Appeals Report.
---------------