
    Ray Bolton v. The State.
    No. 6086.
    Decided January 26, 1921.
    Burglary—Statement of Facts—Practice on Appeal.
    In the absence of a statement of facts, complaints to the failure of the court to charge on the law of accomplice testimony and circumstantial evidence cannot be considered on appeal.
    Appeal from the Criminal District Court of Dallas. Tried below before the Honorable Robert B. Seay.
    Appeal from a conviction of burglary; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary.
    The opinion states the case.
    No brief on file for appellant.
    
      Alvin M. Owsley, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.
    On question of failure in the charge of trial court is not reviewable without statement of facts: Lewis v. State, 220 S. W. Rep., 1094; Pulliam v. State, 219 id., 828; Bradley v. State, 221 id., 1086; Guillen v. State, 221 id., 1086.
   MORROW, Judge.

Conviction is for burglary. There is no statement of facts. Bill of exceptions complaining of the failure of the court to charge on the law of accomplice testimony and circumstantial evidence are in the record but are accompanied by no facts enabling the court to determine whether they are applicable or not. In the absence of matters in the record to the contrary, the presumption in favor of the correctness of the court’s ruling prevails.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.  