
    YOUNG v. STATE.
    (No. 11589.)
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    May 9, 1928.
    Criminal law <&wkey;1090(1) — Absence of hill of exceptions and statement of facts held to prevent review on appeal (Code Cr. Proc. 1925, art 667).'
    Failure of appellant to incorporate bill of exceptions and statement of facts in record prevented review of trial court’s rulings, under Code Or. Proc. 1925, art 667.
    Appeal from Harris County Court at Law No. 2; Ray Scruggs, Judge.
    W. C. Young was convicted of violating the loan brokers statute, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Fred L. Perkins and Earle Adams, Jr., both of Houston, for appellant.
    A. A. Dawson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.
   LATTIMORE, J.

Conviction for violating . the loan brokers statute; punishment, a fine of $125. '

No bills of exception, appear in tbe record, and no statement of facts accompanies tbe transcript. Appellant filed a motion to quash tbe information, but does not save tbe questions there presented by bill of exceptions. Article 667 of our Code of Criminal Procedure of 1925 requires that a bill of exceptions be preserved in order to bring before this court complaints of tbe rulings on tbe trial. Many authorities are cited in tbe annotation by Mr. Vernon of said article. Tores v. State, 74 Tex. Cr. R. 37, 166 S. W. 523; White v. State, 79 Tex. Cr. R. 345, 185 S. W. 22; Peace v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 196 S. W. 952; Anselmo v. State, 82 Tex. Cr. R. 595, 200 S. W. 523; Shaw v. State, 89 Tex. Cr. R. 205, 229 S. W. 509. We have recently upheld tbe constitutionality of tbe law under which this prosecution was brought. Brand v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 3 S.W.(2d) 439.

Finding no error in tbe record, tbe judgment will be affirmed. 
      tg^For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     