
    HARGETT v. STATE.
    (No. 10416.)
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    April 6, 1927.
    I. Criminal law <&wkey;922(7)— Objection to court’s charge in motion for new trial is too late (Vernon’s Ann. Code Cr. Proc. 1925, art. 658, note 89).
    Under Vernon’s Ann. Code Cr. Proc. 1925, art. 658, note 89, objection to court’s charge must be made in writing before charge is read to jury; consequently objections presented for first time in motion for new trial came too late.
    Physicians and surgeons <&wkey;6( 10) — Evidence held to support finding that defendant practicing medicine resided in county named. 2.
    In prosecution for practicing medicine without registering a license authorizing it, evidence held to support jury finding that defendant resided in T. county as charged.
    Appeal from Tarrant County Court at Law No. 1; P. W. Seward, Judge.
    H. Gordon Hargett was convicted of practicing medicine without registering a license authorizing it, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Will C. Austin, of Fort Worth, for appellant.
    Chas. L. Black and R. M. Turpin, both of Austin, R. B. Young, Jr., Asst. Cr. Dist. Atty., of Fort Worth, and Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., and Robt. M. Lyles, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.
   HAWKINS, J.

Conviction is for practicing medicine without registering a license authorizing it. Punishment is by fine,of $50 and one hour in jail.

We find no merit in the criticism of the information. It appears to follow the statute and is in accord with approved forms. See Wilson’s Cr. Forms, No. 343, approved in Teem v. State, 79 Tex. Cr. R. 285, 183 S. W. 1144.

Some complaint is found in the motion for new trial of one paragraph of the court’s charge. Under our present procedure statute (article 658, C. O. P. 1925), objection to the court’s charge must be made in writing before the charge is read to the jury. Objections presented for the first' time in the motion for new trial come too late. Many authorities will be found collated in note 89 under article 658, in volume 2, Vernon’s Ann. Cr. St.

The contention is made that the record fails to show that appellant resided in Tar-rant county where the prosecution was had, and where it was alleged appellant did reside. No question seems to have been raised upon this issue during the trial, which probably accounts for the meagemess of the testimony relative thereto. The statement of facts does show that appellant tendered to the district clerk of Tarrant county for registration his diploma or certificate authorizing him to engage in chiropractic treatments, and that the officer declined to register it because not permitted by the statute. The statute requires registration in the' county of the practitioner’s residence. Tendering registration in Tarrant county is strongly indicative of residence there. It is further shown that appellant maintained an office in Tarrant county where he gave treatments or “adjustments” as he called them. Three witnesses who resided in Tarrant county testified they had known appellant for a number of years and knew bis reputation in the community “in which, he resided,” and that it was good. No witness testified in hsee verba that appellant resided in Tarrant county; hut such fact, like any other, could be proven by circumstances, and in the absence of any question upon that issue being raised during the trial, we feel unwarranted in saying that from the circumstances proved the jury is not supported in finding that appellant resided in Tarrant county.

The judgment is affirmed. 
      <te>For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     