
    HUMPHRIES v. STATE.
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Jan. 21, 1914.)
    1. Criminal Law (§ 916) — New Trial — Objection at Trial — Necessity.
    Where accused did not move for a continuance so as to enable her to prepare for trial, she cannot complain in the motion for new trial that she was not prepared for trial.
    [Ed. Note. — Eor other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2159, 2160; Dec. Dig. § 916.]
    2. Criminal Law (§ 1090) — Appeal — Bill op Exceptions.
    Error in admitting evidence that one of accused’s witnesses had been indicted for bank robbery, etc., which was merely made a ground of the motion for new trial, and not verified by a bill of exceptions, cannot be considered on appeal.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2653, 2789, 2803-2822, 2825-2827, 2927, 2928, 2948, 3204; - Dec. Dig. § 1090.]
    3. Criminal Law (§ 1144) — Appeal-Statement op Fact — Necessity.
    In absence of a statement of facts, it is presumed that the verdict is sufficiently supported by the evidence.
    [Ed. Note. — For other eases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2736-2764, 2766-2771, 2774-2781,2901, 3016-3037; Dec. Dig. § 1144.]
    Appeal from Wichita County Court; C. B. Felder, Judge.
    Rose Humphries was convicted of carrying a pistol, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
    
      
      For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep’r Indexes
    
   DAVIDSON, J.

Appellant was convicted for carrying a pistol; her punishment being assessed at a fine of $100.

The record contains neither a statement of facts nor bills of exception. The motion for new trial alleges that the attorney who represented her during the trial was employed only a few minutes before the state had announced ready; in other words, by reason of this, she went into trial unprepared. There was no motion made to continue the case until defendant could get ready, or two days claimed in which to prepare for trial, if she was entitled to it. This complaint comes only in the motion for new trial. This is too late.

The second ground of the motion, is that the court committed error calculated to injure the rights of defendant, by permitting the state’s attorney to prove by the defendant’s witness Kid Humphries that he had been indicted for bank robbery and other offenses. This is simply made a ground of the motion for new trial, and is not verified by bill of exceptions.

The other ground relates to the sufficiency of the testimony. That is not in the record. In the absence of the facts, the presumption obtains that the verdict of the jury is correct.

The judgment is affirmed.  