
    WATSON v. STATE.
    (No. 5764.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    April 7, 1920.)
    1. Criminal law 1048 — Bill of exceptions to denial of new trial does not go to matters not excepted to at trial.
    A bill of exceptions to overruling of a motion for new trial will not suffice to bring up for review trial proceedings to which exceptions should have been taken at time of their occurrence.
    2. Criminal law <@=>1056(1) — Charges not excepted to before argument cannot be reviewed.
    Where no exceptions were taken to charge in criminal case before argument as required by statute, such matters cannot be reviewed.
    3. Homicide <@=>250, 332(2) — Evidence held sufficient to sustain conviction. .
    A verdict of guilty of murder held sustained by evidence and, the weight thereof being primarily for the jury, the appellate court will not disturb the verdict.
    Appeal from District Court, Houston County; John S. Prince, Judge.
    Aslee Watson was convicted of murder, and she appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Alvin M. Owsley, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   LATTIMORB, J.

Appellant was convicted of murder, in the district court of Houston county, and her punishment fixed at 10 years’ confinement in the penitentiary.

No brief is on file for appellant, and the record contains but one bill of exceptions, which was reserved to the action of the court below, in overruling appellant’s motion for a new trial. Examining said motion, we find in same several complaints of errors said to have been committed by the admission of illegal testimony; and also complaints of the misconduct of the jury, and other matters occurring upon the trial.

It seems to be the uniforq®' holding of this court that a bill of exceptions taken to the overruling of a motion for new trial will not suffice to bring up for review proceedings had upon the trial, to which exceptions should hare been taken at the 'time of their occurrence. Lerman v. State, 40 S. W. 286; Miller v. State, 59 Tex. Cr. R. 249, 128 S. W. 117; Golden v. State, 66 Tex. Cr. R. 262, 146 S. W. 945; Wingate v. State, 69 Tex. Cr. R. 234, 152 S. W. 1078; Simmons v. State, 73 Tex. Cr. R. 288, 164 S. W. 843; Walker v. State, 73 Tex. Cr. R. 99, 164 S. W. 3.

Complaint is also made, in said motion; of certain portions of the charge of the court below. It appears that no exceptions were taken to said charge before the argument, such as is required by our statutes. We are compelled to hold that this complaint comes too late.

It is. also insisted that the verdict is contrary to the law and the evidence. All the parties were negroes, and there is evidence which makes apparent the fact that appellant was keeping company with deceased, as was also another negro by the name of Campbell. Appellant claimed upon the trial that deceased had made some threats against her, in connection with her being with the negro Campbell, and she says that, a short time before she shot deceased, he struck her with his fist; and she assigns that fact as the motive for the shooting. It appears from the state’s evidence that appellant was called out of the house where she was by deceased, twice on the night of the homicide, and shortly before the same. Witnesses who heard them talking said that de,ceased talked-in a quiet voice, but that appellant talked loud. Witness Mary Davis testified that, just before the shooting, she heard appellant say to deceased substantially, that he kept on messing around with these other woman, and then coming and messing around her, and she was going to kill him. No arms of any kind were found on deceased, nor did appellant claim to the parties with whom she talked first after the shooting that he made any kind of attack or assault upon her. The weight of the evidence is primarily for the jury, and, there appearing facts sufficient to justify the verdict, we cannot uphold this contention. 1

No error appearing in the record, the judgment will be affirmed. 
      <@=>For otEer cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     