Branch's P. C., Sec. 167, Page 101; 39 Texas Digest, Statutes, Sec. 345, P. 294. An exception to this rule is that the prior conviction must not be too remote. Branch's P. C., Sec. 170. The question of remoteness is usually to be determined in the light of the particular facts of each case, especially regarding subsequent conduct of the convict. If there be evidence showing a lack of reformation, or the subsequent conviction of another felony, then the prior conviction is not deemed subject to the objection of remoteness. Oates v. State, 149 S.W. 1194, 67 Tex. Crim. 488; Shipp v. State, 283 S.W. 520, 104 Tex.Crim. R.; Fritts v. State, 42 S.W.2d 609, 119 Tex.Crim. R.; Lott v. State, 60 S.W.2d 223, 123 Tex.Crim. R.; Thomason v. State, 72 S.W.2d 598, 126 Tex.Crim. R.; Jones v. State, 116 S.W.2d 717, 134 Tex.Crim. R.; Perez v. State, 150 S.W.2d 402, 141 Tex.Crim. R.. In the instant case, the conviction occurred in 1926.