
    HUGHES v. STATE.
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Jan. 21, 1914.)
    1. Criminal Law (§ 1097*) — Appeal—Statement oe Facts.
    In absence of a statement of facts, a ground of the motion for new trial, based on the insufficiency of the evidence, cannot be considered.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2862, 2864, 2926, 2934, 2938, 2939, 2941, 2942, 2947; Dec. Dig. 8 1097.*]
    2. Criminal Law (§ 1097*) — Appeal—Statement oe Facts.
    In the absence of a statement of facts, the Court of Criminal Appeals cannot determine whether it was error to refuse a requested instruction, in a prosecution for keeping a disorderly house, that, if the jury had a reasonable doubt as to whether a certain person other than defendant was a lessee of the property, they should acquit.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig-. §§ 2862, 2864, 2926, 2934, 2938, 2939, 2941, 2942, 2947; Dec. Dig. § 1097.*]
    Appeal from Wichita County Court; C. B. Felder, Judge.
    Florence Hughes was convicted of keeping a disorderly house, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   DAVIDSON, J.

Appellant was convicted of keeping a disorderly house. There are no bills of exception with this record, nor does it contain a statement of facts.

The first and second grounds of the motion for new trial are based on the alleged insufficiency of the evidence. The third ground is based on the alleged refusal of the court to give requested instruction No. 1, to the effect, if they had a reasonable doubt as to whether Bob Martin was the tenant and lessee of the property in question during the time alleged, to acquit defendant. In the absence of the statement of facts, we are unable to say whether this was applicable to the case or not.

The judgment is affirmed.  