Case Name: A. J. Johnson v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1920-11-10
Citations: 88 Tex. Crim. 136
Docket Number: 5848
Parties: A. J. Johnson v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 88
Pages: 136–138

Head Matter:
A. J. Johnson v. The State.
5848.
Decided November 10, 1920.
1. —Unlawfully Passing Forged Instrument—Evidence—Bill of Exceptions— Practice on Appeal.
Where appellant complained that he was not allowed on cross-examination of the State’s witness to have him answer certain questions, but the bill of exceptions did not show what the answer to the questions would have been, the matter cannot be reviewed and there was no reversible error.
2. —Same—Rehearing—Charge of Court—Weight of Evidence—Practice in District Court.
The Statutes, Article 735, C. C. P., requires that exceptions to the court’s charge must be taken before it is read to the jury and in writing, specifying the ground of objection, and where this was not done, the complaint that the court’s charge is on the weight of the evidence, cannot be considered, and is not such fundamental error which goes to the basis of the case; besides, it must be seriously doubted whether there was any error if the exception had been properly taken.
3. —Same—Other Offenses—Evidence—Intent—Charge of Court.
Where, upon trial of passing a forged instrument, there was an issue as to the fraudulent intent of the defendant, there was no reversible error in introducing testimony of another similar offense; so that if an exception had been properly taken to the court’s charge limiting this testimony to such intent, there was no reversible error.
Appeal from the District Court of Jones. Tried below before the Honorable W. R. Chapman.
Appeal from a conviction of unlawfully attempting to pass a forged instrument; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the ease.
J. Lee Cearley, for appellant.
On question of insufficiency of the evidence: Ferguson v. State, 187 S. W. Rep., 476.
Alvin M. Owsley, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.
On question of defective bill of exceptions: Brown v. State, 65 S. W. Rep., 529: Fletcher v. State, 153 id., 1135; Harris v. State, 148 id., 1074: James v. State, 138 id., 612.

Opinion:
DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.
Appellant was convicted under the second count of the indictment charging him with unlawfully attempting to pass a forged instrument.
It is unnecessary to make a statement of or discuss the evidence. The jury was warranted in finding the verdict.
There is but one bill of exceptions in the record. It recites that defendant on cross-examination of the witness Middlebrook asked the following question: "Grider—do you know Grider—you say you know Grider'? A. He picked cotton for me. Q. Do you consider him a straight, honest, upright fellow? The State: We object, to that as irrelevant and immaterial." Appellant stated that he offered this-evidence as tending to show Grider's connection with the check; "that he was of that kind or character and that Mr. Middle-brook knew his reputation, and I am just trying to prove his reputation as to being a law-abiding citizen, otherwise, for that purpose." The court sustained the State's objection, and appellant excepted. This is the bill. What Middlebrook would have answered, or what was expected in answer to the question is not stated. Whether his answer would have been favorable or unfaimrable is not shown. As the bill is presented we are unable to say that there was error, in the action of the. court. The reply of the witness, had he been permitted to answer, should have been stated so that this court could ascertain whether it was relevant or not. The bill is too indefinite for revision
The judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.