Case Name: Jno. Ainsworth v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1925-06-24
Citations: 101 Tex. Crim. 172
Docket Number: No. 9551
Parties: Jno. Ainsworth v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 101
Pages: 172–173

Head Matter:
Jno. Ainsworth v. The State.
No. 9551.
Delivered June 24, 1925.
Aggravated Assault — No Statement of Facts — Bills of Exception' — Not Intelligible.
On a charge of assault to murder appellant was convicted of an aggravated assault. No statement of facts having been brought before us we cannot intelligently pass upon appellants complaint of the failure of the trial court to charge on simple assault, and his objections to the evidence admitted. No error appearing the cause is affirmed.
Appeal from the District Court of Eastland County. Tried below before the Hon. E. A. Hill, Judge.
Appeal from a conviction of an aggravated assault; penalty, ninety days in the county jail and a fine of $250.00.
J. D. Barker, for appellant.
Tom Garrard, State’s Attorney, and Grover C. Morris, Assistant State’s Attorney, for the State.

Opinion:
MORROW, Presiding Judge.
The offense is aggravated assault; punishment fixed at confinement in the county jail for a period of ninety days and a fine of $250.00.
The prosecution was under an indictment charging an assault with intent to murder.
The evidence heard before the trial court and the jury is not brought forward for review.
There are two bills of exception, one of which complains of the refusal of the court to charge on the law of simple assault; the other complains that the witness Pitman testified that while standing on the street opposite the place where the shooting took place, he saw a person come out of a door but that he did not know who it was, but to the best of his knowledge and opinion it was appellant. In the absence of the evidence, we cannot know whether the issue of simple assault was raised, nor whether there were such facts contained in the bill of exceptions complaining of the testimony of the witness Pitman mentioned as would enable us to determine whether it wás admissible or whether it was harmful. Pitman V relation to the ease is not revealed by the bill.
The record revealing no error, the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.