
    WAGONER v. STATE.
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Nov. 20, 1912.)
    Criminal Law (§ 1037) — Appeal and Eb-eoe — Presentation and Reservation of Grounds — Remarks of Counsel.
    Where, in a prosecution for crime, the court’s attention was not directed to remarks of state’s counsel complained of as prejudicial at the time, and no instruction was requested thereon, the propriety of the making of such statements is not presented for review.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 1691, 2645; Dec. Dig. § 1037.]
    Appeal from District Court, Comanche County; J. H. Arnold, Judge.
    Dude Wagoner was convicted of crime, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    J. M. Rieger, of Comanche, for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
    
      
      For other oases see same topic and section NUMBER in Deo. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep’r Indexes
    
   HARPER, J.

This is a companion case to that of Coggins v. State, 151 S. W. 311, this day decided, and the facts and questions are so similar we do not deem it necessary to again discuss, but merely refer, to that case.

The only question presented by this record, not raised in the Coggins Case, is an objection to the remarks of state’s counsel. It appears it was proven, without objection, that appellant had been convicted of swindling, and the district attorney, commenting on that fact, said, if he would “obtain property under false pretenses, he would also steal.” The court states, in approving the bill, that he does not know whether the language was used or not; that, if used,- his attention was not called to it at the time, and no charge was requested instructing the jury not to consider it. As the qualification renders it uncertain whether the language was used, and the court is certain that his attention was not called to it, if used, and no request was made to instruct the jury not to consider it, the matter does not present reversible error.

The judgment is affirmed.  