Case ID: sw_170/html/0726-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "DAVIDSON, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

KEITH v. STATE.
    (No. 3259.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Oct. 21, 1914.)
    Ckiminal Law (§ 1114) — Appeal—Recokd.
    Where the record contained neither bills of exceptions nor the evidence, and where the charge was such as could or might be applicable to a state of facts provable under the allegations of an indictment sufficient to charge the offense, assignments of error, after conviction, were not reviewable.
    [Ed. Note. — Eor other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2918, 2921; Dee. Dig. § 1114.]
    Appeal from District Court, McLennan County; Richard I. Munroe, Judge.
    L. E. Keith was convicted of forgery, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
    
      
      For other oases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec, Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep’r Indexes-
    
   DAVIDSON, P. J.

This is a forgery conviction, the record being before us without bills of exception or evidence. It may be questioned that the exceptions, or what purports to be the exceptions, to the charge, are so presented under the late law as would require a revision of the matters set forth; but, be that as it may, the evidence is not before us, and the charge is of such a nature as could or might be applicable to a state of facts provable under the allegations of the indictment. Under quite a line of decisions, the indictment is sufficient to charge the offense of forgery.

As the record presents the matters,' the assignments of error are not reviewable, and the judgment will be affirmed.