
    BRITTON v. STATE.
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Jan. 18, 1911.)
    1. Criminal Law (§ 1088) — Special Charges — Signature.
    Special charges, a failure to give which is objected to in a motion for new trial, will not be reviewed, where they do not bear the signature of the trial judge, as required by Code Cr. Proc. 1895, art. 718.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Dec. Dig. § 1088.]
    2. Criminal Law (§ 1092) — Bill of Exceptions — Approval.
    A bill of exceptions, disapproved by the trial judge on the ground that no objection was reserved to the testimony referred to therein, will not be considered.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Dec. Dig. § 1092.]
    3. Criminal Law (§ 1137) — Appeal—Scope of Review.
    Where defendant and his counsel agreed in open court that a jury might be summoned by the sheriff, accused could not object on appeal that the jury was not regularly drawn by a jury commissioner.
    [Ed. Note.1 — For other eases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 3007-3110; Dec. Dig. § 1137.]
    Appeal from Panola County Court; W. R. Anderson, Judge.
    Will Britton was convicted of carrying a pistol, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    See, also, 57 Tex. Cr. R. 583, 124 S. W. 684.
    H. N. Nelson, for appellant. John A. Mobley, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
    
      
      For other oases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep’r Indexes
    
   HARPER, J.

The appellant was convicted in the county court of Panola county, Tex., of unlawfully carrying a pistol, and his punishment assessed at a fine of $100.

1. In the motion for a new trial complaint is made of the refusal of the court to give special charges Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 5. These charges do not bear the signature of the judge trying the cause, and cannot be considered by this court. Code Cr. Proc. 1895, art. 718; Jeffries v. State, 9 Tex. App. 603.

2. There is but one bill of exception in the record, and this is not approved by the judge. In fact, the indorsement states: “This bill of exception is not approved. There was no objection reserved to any part of the testimony.” Therefore we cannot consider it.

3. There are only two other grounds in the motion for a new trial. One is that the jury was not regularly drawn by a jury commission, but was summoned by the sheriff. In the record we find a contest of the motion for a new trial filed by the county attorney, in which it is stated that defendant and his counsel had agreed in open court that a jury 'might be summoned by the sheriff. The other objects to two paragraphs of the charge of the court, the reasons for the objection being: “This portion of the charge authorized the jury to find defendant guilty, regardless of whether the pistol was broken and out of repair or not.” The jury had been told by the court in another paragraph that, if the pistol was being carried for the purpose of having same repaired, they would find him not guilty, and in the paragraph following the one complained of the court states that, if the jury have a reasonable doubt as to whether the pistol was out of repair, they would acquit him.

Finding no error in that part of the record that we are authorized to consider, the judgment is affirmed.  