Case Name: CANTERBERRY v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1925-06-03
Citations: 275 S.W. 1040
Docket Number: No. 9178
Parties: CANTERBERRY v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 275
Pages: 1040–1041

Head Matter:
CANTERBERRY v. STATE.
(No. 9178.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
June 3, 1925.
Rehearing Denied Oct. 21, 1925.)
Callaway, Dalton & Callaway, of Dallas, for appellant.
Shelby S. Cox, Cr. Dist. Atty., of Dallas; and Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
BAKER, J.
The appellant was indicted in Dallas county, charged with murdering his brother, Sam Canterberry, and was tried and convicted in the criminal district court of said county of manslaughter, and his punishment assessed at five years' confinement in the penitentiary. The record discloses that there are no exceptions taken to the court's charge, and no requested special charges presented. •The record as presented to us contains only two bills of exceptions, numbered 1 and 2.
Bill of exceptions No. 1 complains of the action of the court in permitting the state to introduce in evidence the written confession of the appellant. This bill fails to disclose the written confession complained of, and for much of the testimony we are referred generally to the statement of facts. This court holds that it will not consider bills of this kind, and that the bills which are presented to this court should be complete within themselves and manifest fully the error complained of. Hubbard v. State, 94 Tex. Cr. R. 480, 251 S. W. 1054, and many other decisions we could cite, which we deem unnecessary.
Bill of exceptions No. 2 complains of the action of the court in permitting the state to .interrogate the defendant on cross-examination concerning a sore on his leg. This entire bill is made up in question and answer form. Under article 846, O. C. P., this court is unauthorized to consider this bill. This court in many decisions has upheld the article, supra, and refused to consider bills in question and answer form, which dectrine is so well established now that it is really unnecessary to cite authorities' in support thereof.
We have given this record as presented a careful examination, and find no reversible errors therein, and are of the opinion that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed ; and it is accordingly so ordered.
PER OURIAM.
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.