Case Name: Jose Montez, alias Preceliano Del Real, v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1925-10-21
Citations: 101 Tex. Crim. 582
Docket Number: No. 9306
Parties: Jose Montez, alias Preceliano Del Real, v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 101
Pages: 582–583

Head Matter:
Jose Montez, alias Preceliano Del Real, v. The State.
No. 9306.
Delivered October 21, 1925.
Theft by Conversion — Bills of Exception — Question and Answer Form — Not Considered.
Where there are ten bills of exception in the record, complaining of various rulings of the court, every one of which is prepared in question and answer form, under the repeated and continuing decisions of this court, as ■well as our statutes, they cannot be considered. Following Robbin’s v. State, 272 S. W. 175 and other cases cited. The indictment being in proper form, and the evidence sufficient to support the conviction, and no other questions properly brought forward for review the judgment is affirmed.
Appeal from the District Court of Bexar county. Tried below before the Hon. W. S. Anderson, Judge.
Appeal from a conviction of theft by conversion; penalty, two years in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case.
A. B. Cowen, for appellant.
C. M. Chambers, District Attorney, Sam D. Stinson, State’s Attorney, and Nat Gentry, Jr., Assistant State’s Attorney, for the State.

Opinion:
BERRY, Judge.
The appellant was convicted in the district court of Bexar county for the offense of theft and his punishment assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for a term of two years.
The appellant was convicted on the second count in an indictment wherein he is charged with the offense of theft by conversion as bailee, of the sum of $95.00 alleged to have been the property of Anselma Cervantz. The evidence is amply sufficient to support the verdict.
There are ten bills of exception in the record in which complaint is made at various rulings of the court, but each of these bills of exception is in question and answer form and for that reason cannot be considered by this court. Robbins v. State, 272 S. W., 175; Romez v. State, 245 S. W., 914; Jetty v. State, 235 S. W., 589; Rylee v. State, 236 S. W., 744; Huey v. State, 235 S. W., 887, and the many eases referred to in those opinions.
The indictment being in proper form and the evidence sufficient to support the verdict, and there being no other questions properly before this court for review, it is our opinion that the judgment should be in all things affirmed.
• Affirmed.
The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.