
    UNGER v. STATE.
    (No. 8059.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Feb. 13, 1924.
    Rehearing Denied March 26, 1924.)
    Criminal law &wkey;l090(7)— Bill of exceptions must be taken in order to assign error on refusal of continuance.
    In order to render available an objection to the refusal of a continuance, a bill of exceptions must be taken; otherwise, the court of criminal appeals will conclude that the overruling of the application was acceptable to accused.
    Appeal from District Court, Knox County; J. H. Milam, Judge.
    Andrew Unger was convicted of the unlawful manufacture of intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    D. J. Brookreson, of Benjamin, and J. S. Kendall, of Munday, for appellant,
    Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.
   LATTIMORE, J.

Appellant was convicted in the district court of Knox county of the unlawful manufacture of intoxicating liquor, and his punishment fixed at one year in the penitentiary.

The record is before us without bills of exception. There is a short brief complaining of the refusal of a continuance. This court uniformly holds that, in order to render available an objection to the refusal of a continuance, a bill of exceptions must be taken ; else we conclude that the overruling of such application is acceptable to the accused. No bill of exceptions having been reserved to the court’s action in this particular, the complaint is without merit.

The statement of facts amply shows the guilt of the accused. Stills and large quantities of liquor were found upon his place by a searching party. He testified in’ an attempt to ascribe the manufacture to his brother, but in their province the jury have seen fit to decline to accept his statement, and we see no reason to doubt 'the sufficiency of the testimony to support the conclusion of guilt.

The judgment will be affirmed.  