
    CHAPA v. STATE.
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    March 5, 1913.)
    1. Criminal Law (§ 1099*) — Statement oe Facts — Sueeicienct.
    A paper, which was neither signed by the attorneys nor approved by the trial judge, could not be considered as a statement of facts on appeal in a criminal case.'
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2866-2880; Dec. Dig. § 1099.*]
    2. Criminal Law (§ 1121*) — Appeal and Error — Record—Sueeicienct oe Evidence.
    Where the evidence was not properly included in the record, the appellate court could not review its sufficiency to sustain a conviction.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2938, 2939; Dec. Dig. § 1121.*]
    3. Criminal Law (§ 1097*) — Appeal and Error — Record—Instruction.
    In the absence -of a statement of facts showing the evidence, the reviewing court could not, on appeal from a conviction of murder in the second degree, review the trial court’s refusal to charge on manslaughter; the presumption in such case being that the court charged all the law applicable to the evidence.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2862, 2864, 2926, 2934. 2938, 2939, 2941, 2942, 2947; Dec. Dig. § 1097.*]
    Appeal from District Court, Bee County; F. G. Chambliss, Judge.
    Leandro Chapa was convicted of murder in the second degree, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    John Baker, W. G. Gayle, and John R. Beasley, all of Beeville, for appellant. -O. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   HARPER, J.

Appellant was prosecuted and convicted of murder in the second degree, and his punishment assessed at five years’ confinement in the state penitentiary.

There is no statement of facts accompanying the record we can consider. There is what purports to be a statement of facts, made in question and answer form; but it does not bear tbe signature of tbe attorneys trying tbe case, neither bas it been approved by tbe district judge.

Tbe first ground of tbe motion complains of tbe insufficiency of tbe testimony. Not having tbe evidence before us, we must presume that it supported tbe verdict Neither can we determine whether or not tbe court erred in refusing to charge on manslaughter.

Neither can we review tbe charge of tbe court on account of tbe alleged errors, nor tbe failure to give -tbe special charge requested. In tbe absence of a statement of facts, we must presume tbe court charged tbe law, and all tbe law, applicable to tbe evidence. Tbe court submitted tbe offense charged in tbe indictment, and while it might have been more desirable that tbe law be applied more directly to tbe facts in tbe case, as contended by appellant, but not having tbe evidence before us, we cannot determine whether the court did or did not sufficiently do so.

Tbe judgment is affirmed.  