
    BRADY v. STATE.
    (No. 7161.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Oct. 18, 1922.)
    Criminal law <&wkey;l 144(14) — Court presumed to have properly refused instructions, in absence of statement of facts.
    Where the pertinency of the special charges refused depended on the facts in evidence, the Court of Criminal Appeals will assume, in the absence of a statement of facts, that the court properly refused the instructions.
    Appeal from District Court, Fannin County; R. T. Lipscomb, Special Judge.
    E. M. Brady was convicted of burglary by the use of explosives, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   HAWKINS, J.

Appellant was convicted of burglary by the use of explosives (articles 1315 and 1316 P. C.), and his punishment assessed at 25 years in the penitentiary.

No statement of facts appears in the record. A number of special charges were requested and refused. The pertinency or otherwise thereof depends on the facts in evidence. This not being before us, we must assume the court properly refused the instructions.

No other question is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.  