
    HUNT v. STATE.
    (No. 4776.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Dec. 19, 1917.
    On Rehearing, Feb. 6, 1918.)
    1. Bail <§=>70 — Appeal Bond —Who Musi Approve.
    An appeal bond filed in vacation in a criminal case must be approved by the district judge as well as the sheriff.
    On Rehearing.
    2. Criminal Daw @=>1090(13) — Matters Re-vie w able — U n verified Matters.
    Alleged improper argument of state’s counsel, not verified by bill of exceptions or certified by the trial judge, cannot be reviewed.
    Appeal from District Court, Titus County ; J. A. Ward, Judge.
    Lon Hunt was convicted of burglary, and be appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Seb F. Caldwell, of Mt. Pleasant, for appellant. E. B. Hendricks1, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   DAVIDSON, P. J.

Appellant was convicted of burglary; bis punishment being assessed at two years’ confinement in the penitentiary.

The assistant Attorney General moves to dismiss the appeal. Appellant failed to enter into a recognizance, but filed an appeal bond, which seems not to be in compliance with the law. Court adjourned on the 14th day of July. The appeal bond was filed on the 10th of August. The law requires1 that the bond shall be approved when filed in vacation, as this bond was, not only by the sheriff of the county, but also by the district judge who tried the case. The sheriff did approve the bond, but the district judge did not. In order to make it a valid obligation the judge who tried the case must approve the bond in addition to the approval of the sheriff.

The motion will be sustained, and the appeal dismissed.

On Rehearing.

On a previous day of the term this appeal was dismissed because of an insufficient recognizance. This defect has been supplied, and the case will be reinstated.

Appellant insists the judgment should be reversed because of illegitimate argument of state’s counsel. He requested charges to disregard said argument, stating as a reason in the special charges, as he does in the motion for new trial, that the evidence did not justify such remark, and in fact that there was no evidence to form the basis of the argument Had this matter been verified by a bill of exceptions, it would have presented a question for consideration. That counsel made the statement imputed to him is not certified by the trial judge, and such matters are not shown to have occurred except as stated above. In order to have matters of, this sort considered on appeal, they should be in some manner verified by the court, and because this was not done this matter will not be considered.

We are of opinion that the evidence justified the jury in finding that appellant was the party who entered the alleged burglarized house and took the property.

The judgment will be affirmed.  