
    SIMPSON v. STATE.
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    June 5, 1912.)
    1. Criminal Law (§ 1054) — Appeaí>-Bills of Exceptions — Necessity.
    Rulings on evidence cannot be reviewed, where appellant fails to preserve bills of exception thereto at the time.
    [Ed. Note. — Eor other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2662-2664; Dec. Dig. § 1054.]
    2. Criminal Law (§ 1097) — Appeal—Statements of Pacts — Rulings with Reference to Instructions.
    In the absence of a statement of facts, exceptions, in a motion for a new trial, to the charge, and to. the court’s action eliminating or erasing certain expressions from the charge, cannot be reviewed.
    [Ed. Note. — Eor other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2S62, 2864, 2926, 2934, 2938, 2939, 2941, 2942, 2947; Dec. Dig. § 1097.]
    Appeal from Criminal District Court, Dallas County; R. B. Seay, Judge.
    Bud Simpson was convicted of aggravated assault, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    O. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
    
      
       For other oases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dee. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep’r Indexes
    
   DAVIDSON, P. J.

Appellant was convicted of aggravated assault under an ■ indictment charging him with an assault with in* tent to murder.

In the motion for a new trial several grounds were urged to the introduction of testimony. Appellant failed to reserve bills of exception. These matters cannot be considered. There was also a motion made to exclude from the record testimony which was admitted, which the motion for new trial alleges was overruled. To this there was no bill of exception reserved. It is also contended in said motion that the court erred in not permitting certain evidence to be introduced on the part of the defendant. These grounds are in the same condition as those mentioned. Appellant failed to reserve bills of exceptions.

There are exceptions in the motion for new trial to the charge, and the action of the court eliminating or erasing certain expressions from the charge. The statement of facts is not in the record, and we are unable to decide intelligently these matters. Without the evidence before us, there may have been no error. Following the general proposition that the action of the trial court is presumed to be correct until shown to be erroneous, we must presume, in the absence of the evidence, there was no error in these matters.

It is further urged that the court erred in failing to limit the purpose for admitting certain testimony. We are unable to say for what purpose this testimony was admitted, in the light of the record, or whether it was. necessary to limit it at all.

The judgment is affirmed.  