Case Name: Peter Hall v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1894-10-17
Citations: 33 Tex. Crim. 537
Docket Number: No. 976
Parties: Peter Hall v. The State.
Judges: Judges all present and concurring.
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 33
Pages: 537–538

Head Matter:
Peter Hall v. The State.
No. 976.
Decided October 17.
1. Murder — Motion for Mew Trial — Practice on Appeal. — On a trial for murder, where the grounds of the motion for new trial were, that the verdict was contrary to the law and evidence, and the court “ failed to charge the jury upon the law of accomplice,” Held, this court, on appeal, is unable to revise the matters where no statement of facts, hills of exception, nor errors assigned are found in the record.
2. Same — Presumption as to Judgment, — -In the absence of a statement of facts and bills of exception found in the record, the court, on appeal, will presume that the rulings and judgment of the court below were correct.
Appeal from the District Court of Wood. Tried below before Hon. Felix J. McCord.
Appellant was indicted for the murder of one J. L. Wagner, in Wood County, by inflicting mortal wounds and bruises upon him with a stoye-leg, a chamber, and a certain heavy and hard instrument, to the grand jurors unknown, on the 30th day of April, 1893, from which the said Wagner died on the 10th day of June, 1893. At his trial he was convicted of murder of the first degree, the penalty being assessed at death.
There is no statement of facts nor bill of exceptions in the record.
No briefs have come to the hands of the Eeporter.

Opinion:
DAVIDSON, Judge.
This appeal is prosecuted from a judgment of conviction of murder in the first degree, the jury having assessed the death penalty. It was urged, in the motion for a new trial in the court below, that the verdict was contrary to the law and against the evidence, and that the court erred in failing "to charge the jury upon the law of accomplice."
A statement of facts proved on said trial is not incorporated in the record. We are therefore unable to revise the questions suggested in' said motion for a new trial. There are no bills of exception sent up in the transcript, and errors are not assigned. We must presume in favor of the correctness of the rulings of the court and the judgment of the court. Where a reversal is sought some error must be made to appear. In the absence of the testimony, we presume the question in regard to the law of accomplices was not suggested by the evidence adduced on the trial.
As presented to us we find no error in the record, and the judgment is therefore affirmed.
Affirmed.
Judges all present and concurring.