Case Name: A. Humphries v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1913-10-29
Citations: 71 Tex. Crim. 551
Docket Number: No. 2695
Parties: A. Humphries v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 71
Pages: 551–551

Head Matter:
A. Humphries v. The State.
No. 2695.
Decided October 29, 1913.
1. —Vagrant—Evidence—Bills of Exception.
In the absence of bills of exception, complaints in the motion for new trial in regard to the admissibility of testimony can not be considered on appeal.
2. —Same—Statement of Facts.
Where the statement of facts was not approved by the trial judge, the same could not be considered on appeal; besides, there was no error in refusing requested charges.
Appeal from the County Court of Wichita. Tried below before the Hon. C. B. Felder.
Appeal from a conviction of vagrancy; penalty, a fine of $200.
The opinion states the case.
Nicholson & Blankenship and Mathis Kay, for appellant.
Cited Ellis v. State, 65 Texas Crim. Rep., 480.
C. E. Lane, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

Opinion:
HARPER, Judge.
Appellant was convicted of being a vagrant in that he habitually associated with prostitutes and loitered habitually in and around houses of prostitution.
There are a number of complaints in the motion for a new trial in regard to the admissibility of certain testimony, hut as no hills of exception thereto were reserved,—at least none being in the record,—we can not review these questions.
There is a paper in the record styled "statement of facts," hut same was never signed nor approved by the judge trying the case, and therefore .can not he considered for any purpose; the motion of the Assistant Attorney-General to strike it from the record is sustained. However, if we could consider same, taking into consideration the two special charges, given at appellant's request, no error would be presented.
The judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.