This check was admissible upon the issue of intent and knowledge. See Stradford v. State, 299 S.W. 418; Escue v. State, 106 Tex. Crim. 506; 294 S.W. 202 and authorities cited; 18 Tex. Juris., pp. 70-74; Hanson v. State, No. 20673 recently decided by this Court but not yet reported. Appellant urged a number of objections to the court's charge.
There are no exceptions to the charge. In his motion for rehearing the appellant, upon the authority of Modica v. State, 251 S.W. 1049; Smith v. State, 292 S.W. 879; Yeager v. State, 294 S.W. 202; Venturi v. State, 272 S.W. 212, contends that there being no designation of the particular count upon which the verdict is based, the court was without authority to enter a judgment. The cases apply a sound rule, namely, where plural counts charging separate felonies have been submitted to the jury and a general verdict returned assessing more than the minimum punishment and with the judgment following the verdict, that reversals have resulted.