
    Ex parte PARKER.
    (No. 4267.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Oct. 18, 1916.)
    1. Habeas Cokpus &wkey;>118(9) — Appeal — Statement of Pacts — Appeoval by Judge.
    A statement of facts not approved by the trial judge cannot be considered on appeal in habeas corpus proceedings to procure release from custody on bail.
    [Ed. Note. — Por other cases, see Habeas Corpus, Cent. Dig. § 111; Dec. Dig. &wkey;>113(9).]
    2. Habeas Corpus <&wkey;113(ll) — Appeal — Opinion — Discussion of Evidence.
    On appeal from a judgment in habeas corpus proceedings denying release from custody on bail, the appellate court will not state or discuss the testimony.
    [Ed. Note. — Por other cases, see Habeas Corpus, Cent. Dig. § 113; Dee. Dig. &wkey;113(ll).]
    Appeal from District Court, Van Zandt County; R. M. Smith, Judge.
    Habeas corpus by R. P. Parker to secure his release from custody on bail. Prom a judgment denying a release, petitioner appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Wynne, Wynne & Gilmore, of Wills Point, for appellant. C. C. McDonald, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PRENDERGAST, P. J.

Appellant was held in custody by the sheriff under a proper warrant charging him with murder. An examining trial was held by the justice of the peace a few days after appellant killed deceased, and the justice, after hearing all the testimony, remanded him without bail. Thereupon he sued out a writ- of habeas corpus before the district judge of the district, who also heard all the testimony, and he denied him hail and ¡¡remanded him. Prom this action of the district judge, this appeal is prosecuted.

There is really no statement of facts in the record. What is here has been agreed to by the attorneys on both sides, but has in no way been approved by the trial judge. Strictly, therefore, it cannot be considered. Section 596, p. 304, 1 Branch’s An. P. C. However, before we discovered this, we had carefully read this statement, and even after discovering it we have again read and studied it. We have reached the conclusion that, even if the statement had been approved by the trial judge, we would not be justified in reversing the judgment of the district court denying him bail. As Is our rule, we do not state or discuss the testimony of appeals in this character of ease.

• The judgment is affirmed.  