
    (86 Tex. Cr. R. 231)
    BARGAS v. STATE.
    (No. 5514.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Nov. 12, 1919.)
    1. Criminal law <£=>1090(19), 1092(4,14)— Requisites of bill of exceptions.
    A purported transcript of what occurred on the trial as shown by the stenographer’s notes and certified to by the stenographer, but not presented to or approved by the judge, cannot be considered; since to constitute a bill of exceptions it must be first approved by the court certifying its correctness, and must be filed, either in term time or within such time as may be authorized by law.
    2. Criminal law <£=>1032(7) — Waiver of objection to variance.
    Where defendant in a prosecution for cattle theft was indicted under the name of “Bargas,” to which he pleaded without objection, he could not on appeal contend that his true name was “Vargas,” and that hence there was a variance.
    3. Criminal law <©=>1090(7) — Review of refusal of continuance in absence of bill of exceptions.
    Where a bill of exceptions was not reserved to the refusal of a continuance in a criminal prosecution, it will not be considered on appeal.
    Appeal from District Court, Medina County; R. H. Burney, Judge.
    Martin Bargas was convicted of cattle theft, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Diedrich A. Meyer, of San Antonio, for appellant.
    C. M. Cureton, Atty. Gen., and W. A. Keeling, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   DAVIDSON, P. J.

This conviction was for theft of cattle, the punishment being assessed at two years in the penitentiary.

There are no bills of exception contained in the record. Appellant filed in this court on the 5th of the current month what he terms bills of exception. This purports to he a transcript of what occurred on the trial as shown by the stenographer’s notes, and is so certified by the stenographer. The court adjourned on the 2d of May last. These exceptions are not approved by the judge, nor were they presented to him. This document cannot be considered. In order to constitute a bill of exceptions, it must first be approved by the court certifying its correctness, and, second, it must be filed either in term time or within such time as may be authorized by law.

Appellant contends that, inasmuch as it developed upon the trial that his name was “Vargas” instead of “Bargas” as alleged in the indictment, therefore there was a variance. In this contention there is no merit. Appellant when arraigned pleaded to the indictment as charged. Had he desired to have the indictment corrected or pleaded under his proper name, he should have so suggested to the court, and the indictment would then have been changéd to meet the request so as to show his real name. The law makes a distinction between the name of the defendant alleged in the indictment and the supposed variance by the proof and that of the alleged owner. The defendant may plead by any name if he sees proper; but if he pleads to the name as alleged in the indictment a reversal will not occur, nor would any error be shown. The decisions are quite numerous to this effect.

Appellant filed an application for a continuance. This matter can be disposed of with the statement that a bill of exceptions was not reserved to its refusal, and therefore it cannot be-considered.

The motion for new trial contains several grounds which cannot be considered in the absence of exceptions. While the evidence is circumstantial, we are of opinion it is sufficient to sustain the conviction. A statement of this testimony would be of no service or value, and therefore it is not included in the opinion.

The judgment will be affirmed. 
      ®=»For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     