
    Julius Dave v. The State.
    No. 12231.
    Delivered February 20, 1929.
    Rehearing denied March 27, 1929.
    
      The opinion states the case.
    No brief filed for appellant.
    
      A. A. Dawson of Canton, State’s Attorney, for the State.
   CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is murder; the punishment confinement in the penitentiary for 15 years.

No bills of exception are brought forward. The evidence is sufficient to support the conviction. The state’s testimony is to the effect that appellant, Dick Whitaker and Beatrice Dave were on a street car in the city of Dallas; that appellant arose from his seat, drew a pistol and shot Whitaker three times; that Whitaker made no demonstration toward appellant; that both Whitaker and Beatrice Dave were killed by appellant. Appellant and his witnesses testified that on the day preceding the homicide deceased, Dick Whitaker, knocked appellant down and kicked him. Appellant testified that he had been advised that Whitaker had threatened to kill him and that being afraid of Whitaker he had armed himself with a pistol; that he (appellant) was on the street car at the time Whitaker got on; that later Beatrice Dave got on the car and sat down by Whitaker; that Beatrice Dave motioned for him to come to the seat where she and Whitaker were sitting; that he approached Whitaker and Beatrice Dave; that as he approached them, Whitaker started to put his hand in his pocket, and he, believing his life in danger, shot Whitaker ; that he didn’t know whether he shot Beatrice Dave or not.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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.

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.

LATTIMORE, Judge.

Appellant presents his motion for rehearing based on the proposition that he took certain exceptions to the charge of the court in writing which were duly approved, certified and filed and hence should be considered by us even though no separate bill of exceptions brought forward the complaints of the charge thus evidenced. Appellant is correct in complaining that we did not discuss his exceptions to the charge. Examination of the exceptions show that they were entirely too general. To except to a charge “because said charge does not cover the law in said case, and does not affirmatively present the defense as is shown by the testimony,” wholly fails to call the attention of the court to any specific ground of complaint. The other two grounds of exceptions to the charge are similar. We are of opinion that being of such indefinite character as not to challenge any part of the charge given, nor point out any part of same that was defective, nor call attention to any particular thing that was omitted, the exceptions present ho sufficient ground of complaint.

The motion for rehearing is overruled.

Overruled.  