Case Name: GARLINGTON v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1912-05-08
Citations: 148 S.W. 588
Docket Number: 
Parties: GARLINGTON v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 148
Pages: 588–589

Head Matter:
GARLINGTON v. STATE.
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
May 8, 1912.
On Motion for Rehearing, June 26, 1912.)
1. Cbiminal Law (§ 1090 ) — Appeal and EbROB — Record.
In the absence of a statement of facts or bill of exceptions, the Court of Criminal Appeals will not consider questions attempted to be raised by the motion for a new trial.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. |§ 2653, 2789, 2803-2827', 2927, 2928, 2948, 3204; Dec. Dig. § 1090. ]
On Motion for Rehearing.
2. Criminal Law (§ 1056 ) — Appeal and Error — Presentation Below.
On appeal in a misdemeanor case, the refusal of a special instruction was not reviewable, where no exception was taken.
[Ed. Note. — Eor other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2668, 2670; Dec. Dig. § 1056. )
Appeal from Sabine County Court; T. R. Smith, Judge.
Cal Garlington was convicted of preventing another by violence and intimidation from engaging in bis lawful employment, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
For other oases see same topic and section NUMBER in Deo. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
PRENDERGAST, J.
By proper complaint and information appellant was charged with preventing another from performing .his duty in a lawful employment by acts of violence and intimidation. The charge submits the question properly under the pleadings.
There is no statement of facts nor bills of exceptions. Hence we cannot consider any of the questions attempted to be raised by the motion for new trial.
The judgment is affirmed.