
    BISON v. STATE.
    (No. 6703.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Feb. 22, 1922.)
    1. Incest <S=>I0 — Indictment herd to sufficiently show relationship.
    An indictment charging that defendant did carnally know “one T. S., the said T. S. then and there being the niece of the said W. B. [the defendant], in this, that he, the said W. B., was then and there the brother of Mrs. P. J., who was the mother of the said T. S.,” sufficiently showed that prosecutrix was the “daughter of a sister” of accused, within Vernon’s Arm. Pen. Code 1916, arts. 486, 487.
    2. Criminal law <©=>1067(4) — Sufficiency of evidence not reviewed, in absence of statement of facts.
    A bill of exception to. failure to direct verdict of not guilty on account of alleged insufficiency of evidence is not reviewable, in the absence of a statement of facts.
    Appeal from Criminal District Court, Dallas County; Robert B. Seay, Judge.
    W. B. Bison was' convicted of incest, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Baskett & De Lee, of Dallas, for appellant.
    R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   HAWKINS, J.

Conviction is for incest. Punishment was assessed at 10 years’ confinement in the penitentiary.

The record is before us without statement of facts. The count upon .which appellant was convicted charges, in substance, that appellant—

“did unlawfully carnally know, and incestuously have carnal knowledge of, one Tildie Slawson, the said Tildie Slawson then and there being the niece of the said W. B. Bison, in this, that he, the said W. B, Bison, was then and there the brother of Mrs. P. D. Jones, who was the mother of the said Tildie Slawson.”

Motion was made to quash on the ground that—

“Said count nowhere affirmatively and by direct allegation charges the essential and statutory relationship to constitute the offense of incest. The allegations attempting to charge such relations as would constitute carnal knowledge incest are indirect and argumentative, and not direct and positive.”

Article 486, Vernon’s P. C., provides:

“All. persons who are forbidden to marry by the succeeding articles, who shall intermarry or carnally know each other, shall he punished by imprisonment in the penitentiary not less than two or more than ten years.”

Omitting the portions not here pertinent, article 487, P. O., provides that no man shall marry the daughter of his sister.

As we understand the gist of appellant’s contention, it is that the count in the indictment heretofore quoted should have been quashed, because it does not directly and positively aver that Tildie Slawson was the “daughter of a sister” of appellant. With due regard for all of our decisions, and au- - thorities generally, relative to the strictness of criminal pleading, we cannot agree with the contention urged by appellant in this instance. It was perhaps unnecessary to allege in words that Tildie Slawson was the niece of appellant. But this entire clause can be eliminated from the indictment, and yet the other allegations are sufficient to charge pertinently, we think, that Tildie Slawson was the daughter of appellant’s sister. It is charged positively and directly that appellant was the brother of Mrs. Jones. If appellant was the brother of Mrs. Jones, then Mrs. Jones was appellant’s sister. It is also charged that Mrs. Jones was the mother of Tildie Slawson. If Mrs. Jones was the mother of Tildie Slawson, then Tildie Slaw-son must have been Mrs. Jones’ daughter, and the daughter of appellant’s sister. We do not regard the allegations in the indictment as subject to the criticism of being argumentative or indirect. As we understand them, they charge directly and pertinently facts which, if true, show an incestuous relationship between appellant and the daughter of his sister.

The foregoing question is the only one before us which we can review in the present state of the record. There is a bill of exception to the failure of the trial judge to direct a verdict of not guilty on account of the alleged insufficiency of the evidence. In the absence of a statement of facts, this assignment is not reviewable.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. 
      ®=>For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numhered Digests and Indexes
     