
    Henry Monckton v. The State.
    No. 6914.
    Decided April 26, 1922.
    Rehearing Denied June 14, 1922.
    1. — Forgery—Record on Appeal.
    Where the indictment and charge oí the court appear to be in regular lorm, the judgment must be affirmed in the absence oí a statement of facts and bills oí exceptions.
    
      2. — Same—Rehearing—Certiorari—Companion Case.
    Where the facts are similar to those in a similar case, denying a writ of certiorari, the same order is made in the instant case, and the motion for rehearing overruled.
    Appeal from the Criminal District Court of Dallas. Tried below before the Honorable Robt. B. Seay.
    Appeal from a conviction of forgery; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary.
    The opinion states the case.
    No brief on file for appellant.
    
      R. G. Storey, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.
   LATTIMORE, Judge.

— Appellant was convicted in the Criminal District Court of Dallas County of the offense of forgery, and his punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for a period of two years.

The record is before us without any statement of facts or bills of exception. We have examined the indictment and the charge of the court and each appears to be in due and regular form. No error appearing in this case, the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.

Affirmed.

ON rehearing.

June 14, 1922.

LATTIMORE, Judge.

— Appellant presents his motion for rehearing and also accompanies same by an application for writ of certiorari. The facts are similar to those in cause No. 6906, Henry Monckton v. State, and for the reasons stated in our opinion this day handed down in said cause appellant’s motion for rehearing and his application for certiorari will be denied.

Writ denied.  