
    SMITH v. STATE.
    (No. 3776.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Nov. 3, 1915.)
    1. Criminal Law <&wkey;1090 — Appeal—Bills op Exception.
    The impropriety of overruling a motion for continuance cannot be reviewed without a bill of exceptions.
    [Ed. Note. — Eor other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2653, 2789,2803-2822,2825-2827, 2927, 2928, 2948, 3204; Dec. Dig. &wkey; 1090.]
    2. Criminal Law &wkey;>1097 — Appeal—Statement op Facts — Necessitt.
    The sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction cannot be considered without a statement of facts.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2862, 2864, 2926, 2934, 2938, 2939, 2941, 2942, 2947; Doc. Dig. &wkey;l097.]
    Appeal from Criminal District Court, Dallas County; Robt. B. Seay, Judge.
    Noce Smith was convicted of theft, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    C. C. McDonald. Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   DAVIDSON, J.

Appellant was given a misdemeanor punishment under a felony indictment charging him with theft of personal property.

Motion for a continuance was overruled, and that is assigned as error in the motion for new trial. Appellant failed to reserve a bill of exception; therefore this matter cannot be considered.

All the other matters in the motion for new trial pertain to the sufficiency of the evidence and matters growing out of the evidence, which cannot be considered without the testimony. The record does not contain a statement of facts.

The judgment will be affirmed.  