
    DOVE v. STATE.
    (No. 6041.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    June 15, 1921.
    Rehearing Denied Oct. 19, 1921.)
    1. Criminal law <®=»i I440/2, 17) — Presumptions favor regularity of proceedings and correctness of judgment in absence of statement of facts and bills of exceptions.
    In the absence of statement of facts and bills of exceptions, every presumption must be indulged in favor of the regularity of the proceedings and the correctness of the judgment,
    On Motion for Rehearing.
    2. Criminal law &wkey;>l097(4) — Refusal to withdraw evidence from jury not considered in absence of statement of facts.
    Court’s refusal to withdraw certain evidence from the jury will not he considered on appeal in the absence of a statement of facts.
    Appeal from District Court, Nacogdoches County; L. D. Guinn, Judge.
    Will Dove was convicted of having possession of intoxicating- liquors, not for medicinal, mechanical, scientific, or sacramental purposes, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    S. M. Adams, of Nacogdoches, for appellant on rehearing.
    R. H. Hamilton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   HAWKINS, J.

Conviction was for possession of intoxicating liquors, not for medicinal, mechanical, scientific, or sacramental purposes. Punishment fixed at three years in the penitentiary.

The record is before this court without statement of facts or bills of exceptions.

The conviction was had at a term of court which adjourned on March 27, 1920. The record was not filed in this court until October 22, 1920. As an excuse for not getting the record filed at an earlier date, the clerk certifies that the attorney for appellant carried the original papers to his office for the purpose of writing the bills of exceptiohs, etc., and lost the papers and was only able to produce them on October 20th, and did not prepare the appeal or furnish the statement of facts.

We much prefer to dispose of cases on the merits; but, in the absence of statement of facts and bills of exceptions, every presumption must be indulged as to the regularity of the proceedings and correctness of the judgment.

The judgment is affirmed.

On Motion for • Rehearing.

In his motion for rehearing appellant insists that this court may consider his special charges which were refused, even in the absence of a statement of facts. We did not overlook them in disposing of the case in the first instance. An application for suspended sentence was filed, and this issue was submitted to the jury. The first special charge requested sought to have withdrawn from the jury’s consideration certain evidence which would have been pertinent under proper circumstances on the issue of suspended sentence. In the absence of statement of facts, we are deprived of any means by which we may determine this evidence to have been improperly admitted, hence must presume that no error in fact occurred.

The second' special charge was a request for an instructed verdict of “not guilty,” because of an alleged defective indictment. We have discovered no vice in the indictment.

The motion for rehearing is overruled.  