Case Name: T. J. Thompson v. J. G. Callison and others
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1864
Citations: 27 Tex. 438
Docket Number: 
Parties: T. J. Thompson v. J. G. Callison and others.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Reports
Volume: 27
Pages: 438–439

Head Matter:
T. J. Thompson v. J. G. Callison and others.
Where there is no statement of facts in the record, this court will not consider exceptions to the rulings of the court below excluding testimony, unless there be enough in the record to make it clearly appear that tlie rejected testimony was important, and that its place was not supplied by other testimony.
In the absence of a statement of facts, this court will not consider the judgment of the court below overruling a motion for a new trial based on the ground of newly discovered evidence.
Error from Tyler. Tried below before the Hon. J. M. Maxcy.
Trespass to try title, brought by the defendants in error against the plaintiff in error, for the recovery of a league of land in Tyler county.
There is no statement of facts in the record; but it appears by bills of exceptions taken by the defendant below, that on the trial the District Court excluded from the jury a deed executed by the sheriff of Tyler county conveying all the right and title of the plaintiff, Oallison, in the land in controversy, to one Samuel Frazer, which deed was offered by the defendant for the purpose of showing an outstanding title in Frazer, superior to that of the plaintiff. By another bill of exception, it appeared that the defendant moved for a new trial on account of certain evidence discovered after the trial, but that the court overruled the motion.
Pickett & Rock, for the plaintiff in error.
H. N. & M. M. Potter, for the defendants in error.

Opinion:
Bell, J.
There is no statement of facts contained in the record, and where such is the case this court will not consider exceptions to the rulings of the court below excluding testimony, unless there be enough in the record to make it clearly appear that the rejected testimony was important, and that its place was not supplied by other testimony. (Hutchins v. Wade, 20 Tex. R., 7; Galbreath v. Templeton, 20 Tex. R., 45.)
We do not, however, perceive any error in the rulings of the court below upon the admissibility of evidence.
In the absence of a statement of facts, this court will not consider the judgment of the court below overruling a motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence.
The judgment of the court below is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.