Case Name: EDWARDS v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1913-01-08
Citations: 152 S.W. 926
Docket Number: 
Parties: EDWARDS v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 152
Pages: 926–926

Head Matter:
EDWARDS v. STATE.
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Jan. 8, 1913.)
1. Criminal Law (§ 1097*) — Appeal—Statement oe Facts — Review.
In the absence of a statement of facts, it cannot be said that requested special instructions were erroneously refused.
[Ed. Note. — For ■ other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2862, 2864, 2926, 2934. 2938, 2939, 2941, 2942, 2947; Dec. Dig. § 1097.*]
2. Criminal Law (§ 1090*) — Appeal—Bill op Exceptions — Review.
Where no bill of exceptions is in the record, alleged error of the court refusing continuance cannot be considered.
[Ed. Note.- — For other cases, see Criminal Law, §§ 2653, 2789, 2803-2827, 2927, 2928, 2948, 3204; Dee. Dig. § 1090.*]
Appeal from District Court, Tarrant County ; R. H. Buck, Judge,
Clarance Edwards was convicted of crime, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
DAVIDSON, P. J.
Appellant was convicted of theft of property over the value of $50; his punishment being assessed at three years' confinement in the penitentiary. This record is before us without bills of exception or statement of facts.
The motion for new trial is based on the ground, first, that the court refused to give the special instructions requested by appellant. In the absence of the statement of facts, we cannot say this was error. The charge requested by appellant may not have been called for in the evidence which was admitted, or may have had no relation to the case as made on the trial.
Second. Nor can the alleged error of the court refusing continuance be considered, because the bill of exceptions is not contained in.the record.
The judgment is affirmed.