
    GOODEN v. STATE.
    (No. 11433.)
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Feb. 22, 1928.
    Rehearing Denied April 4, 1928.
    1. Criminal law <&=sl091(4) — Bill of exceptions to testimony, not setting out ground of objection thereto, held without merit.
    Bill of exceptions to testimony of witness concerning alteration of instrument, not setting out ground of exception to testimony, held without merit.
    2. Criminal law <⅜^1120(8) — Bill of exceptions held not to show testimony violated immunity arising from arrest, where no act of defendant, testimony of which might be objectionable, was set out.
    Bill of exceptions to testimony of witness relating to officer’s requesting defendant for alleged forged check, and turning over of check to officer by defendant, charged with attempting to pass forged instrument, reciting that testimony was objected to on ground that defendant was under arrest, did not show violation of right to immunity arising from arrest, where bill set out no conversation or act of defendant, testimony of which might be objectionable.
    3. Forgery <©=344(1/2) — Evidence held to sup-' port conviction for attempting to pass forged check.
    Conviction for attempting to pass forged instrument held sustained by evidence showing defendant approached prosecuting witness with $7,000 check, which he claimed to be his property, which he attempted to pass to witness, and which check was shown to be forged.
    
      On Motion for Rehearing.
    4. Criminal law <§==»1 028 — Court of Criminal Appeals can consider only questions which were before trial court.
    The Court of Criminal Appeals is a reviewing court only, and can only consider such questions as were before trial court.
    5. Criminal law 1139 — Affidavits showing defendant was not at place of crime, filed originally in Court of Criminal Appeals after trial and perfection of appeal, cannot be considered on appeal.
    Affidavits showing defendant was not at place of alleged crime on date charged, obtained and filed in Court of Criminal Appeals originally, after trial and after appeal was perfected, cannot be considered by Court of Criminal Appeals, though affidavits would have been pertinent on motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence,' if filed in trial court.
    Appeal from District Court, Bexar County ; C. J. Matthews, Special Judge.
    Jack Gooden, alias Edward E. Atkinson, was convicted of attempting to pass a forged instrument, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    E. B. Simmons, of San Antonio, for appellant.
    A. A. Dawson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.
   LATTIMORE, J.

Conviction for attempt to pass a forged instrument; punishment, two years in the penitentiary.

Considering both the original and the supplemental transcripts, there appear hut two bills of exception. The first sets up appellant’s objection to the testimony of witness Hart, who was shown to be an assistant cashier of a bank with many years’ experience in that position, and who testified that his opinion of an instrument in writing shown him was that in same there had. originally been written the figure “3,” but that same had been changed to the figure “2.” The bill of exceptions does not even set out the ground of appellant’s objection. The bill is manifestly without merit. The other bill sets out the fact that witness Harris was with the prosecuting witness on a street in San Antonio, and they were looking for a man whp had tried to pass to the prosecuting witness a $7,000 check. Appellant was seen and recognized and approached by said parties. Prosecuting witness had a conversation with appellant, and the officer asked appellant for the check, which he had in his possession, and appellant turned same over to the officer. It is stated in the bill that this testimony was objected to on the ground that defendant was under arrest. We perceive nothing in the testimony in any w¡ay violative of the right of immunity arising from the arrest of the party. The bill sets out no conversation, and no act of appellant, testimony of which might be objectionable under the rule mentioned.

We have carefully examined the facts, and do not deem it necessary to discuss same, further than to say that they support the conclusion that appellant approached the prosecuting witness with a $7,000 check, which he claimed to be his property, and which he attempted to pass to the witness, and which check was shown to be forged.

Finding no error in the record, the judgment will be affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

HAWKINS, J.

Appellant says in his motion that the indictment averred the date of the offense to have been March 21, 1927, whereas the proof showed it to have been committed on March 16,1927. He states that he could have proved that he was in Corpus Christi on the 16th day of March, and not in San Antonio, and hence could not have committed the offense in the latter city on the date claimed. He attaches to his motion affidavits from parties in Corpus Christi supporting this averment, and asks this court to consider them. We have many times stated that this is a reviewing court only, and can only consider such questions as were before the trial court. The affidavits referred to have no place in the record. They would have been pertinent on motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence, if filed in the trial court, provided accused 'could have brought himself within the principles applying to newly discovered evidence; -but this court cannot consider them, when they are obtained and filed in this court originally long after the trial was had, and after appeal was perfected.

The motion is overruled. 
      ®s»For other oases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     