206 S.W. 845
WALLACE et al. 
v. 
STATE.
(No. 5212.)
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
November 27, 1918.
        Appeal from District Court, Freestone County; A. M. Blackmon, Judge.
        Frank Wallace and Alvin Henry were convicted of murder, and they appeal. Affirmed.
Page 846
        E. B. Hendricks, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
        DAVIDSON, P. J.
        Appellants were indicted in the same indictment for the murder of Brag Dunbar, who, the evidence 
shows, was constable at the time he was killed.
        There are no bills of exception in the record, either, to the admission or rejection of testimony, or to 
the charges of the court. Appellants pleaded guilty. Quite a lot of testimony was introduced, to the effect 
that a certain house was burglarized. Dunbar, constable, was notified of that fact by the owner of the 
house. He followed parties supposed to be the burglars; the defendants being those parties. Dunbar and 
the owner were in an automobile together, and upon overtaking them Dunbar told them to hold up. One 
or both of appellants replied practically in the same language, for them to hold up, and began shooting at 
Dunbar before he got out of the car. The evidence is to the effect, practically, that they shot three times 
at him before he got out of the car, or while he was getting out; each shot taking effect. They shot, also, 
at the party who was with Dunbar, the owner of the house that had been burglarized. One of the shots 
took effect in the hip of this party. They also shot at other parties. Later they were arrested in Walker 
county, and under this indictment in Free-stone county were tried and convicted, with the death penalty 
assessed.
        There being no exceptions taken to the charge of the court, and none reserved to the introduction of 
testimony, we are of opinion that there is no question raised by the motion for new trial that can be 
considered. That the parties were guilty of murder under the testimony, it occurs to us, would hardly be 
questioned; there being no extenuating facts or circumstances, and no adequate cause, either in fact or 
by a combination of circumstances, presented.
        The jury might have found a different verdict, or one of less severity; but the facts and the 
circumstances indicate that it was an unnecessary killing, and one that authorized the verdict.
        The judgment will therefore be affirmed.