
    HOUSE v. STATE.
    (No. 4250.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Nov. 8, 1916.)
    1. Criminal Law <&wkey;1090(7) — Bill of Exceptions — Necessity—Continuance.
    The refusal of accused’s request for a continuance cannot be reviewed, where no bill of exceptions is reserved to the ruling.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 3204; Dee. Dig. &wkey;1090(7).]
    2. Criminal Law &wkey;>9'82 — Evidence—Other Offenses — Suspended Sentence.
    Testimony that warrants are held for accused’s arrest for offenses other than that for which he is being tried is admissible, where his request for a suspended sentence is submitted to the jury.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2500, 2501; Dec. Dig. <&wkey;> 982.]
    Appeal from District Court, Jones County; John B. Thomas, Judge.
    J. L. House was convicted of forgery, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Payne & Patterson, of Abilene, for appellant. C. O. McDonald, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   DAVIDSON, J.

Appellant was convicted of forgery; his punishment being assessed at two years’ confinement in the penitentiary.

The refusal of appellant’s continuance cannot be revised, in the absence of bill of exceptions reserved to the ruling of the court.

There is but one bill of exceptions in the record, which is as follows:

“The defendant excepts to the ruling of the court wherein he permitted the state, over the objections of the defendant, to elicit evidence from the sheriff of Stonewall county, Texas, and the sheriff of Jones county, Texas, to the effect, that they each held capiases for the arrest of the defendant for other and different offenses than the one in which he is being tried.”

The grounds were that the testimony was irrelevant, immaterial, prejudicial, and would in no way establish the guilt of the defendant, but was highly inflammatory and could serve no other purpose than to inflame the minds of the jury against him. The bill is very indefinite; it does not undertake to state the testimony; but, conceding that the statement that these .officers held warrants for the arrest of appellant for offenses other than that for which he was being tried presented the question, without a showing to the contrary, this testimony may have been admissible on the issue of appellant’s re-, quest for a suspended sentence. The court submitted the issue of suspended sentence to the jury, and this testimony would have been admissible upon that issue.

Finding iio error in the record, the judgment is affirmed. 
      itewFor other oases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     