
    HARRIS v. STATE.
    (No. 8572.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Dec. 17, 1924.
    Rehearing Denied Jan. 28, 1925.)
    I. Criminal law <&wkey;982 — Defendant’s war service record not admissible on issue of suspended sentence.
    In prosecution for theft of automobile, testimony as to defendant’s good reputation and that he was wounded in late war, and his service record and honorable discharge from United States army, was inadmissible on issue of a ■suspended sentence.
    .2. Criminal law &wkey;l 119(2) — Bill of exceptions held not to present question of improper cross-examination of wife of accused as to matters not testified to by her on direct examination.
    Improper cross-examination of wife of accused as to matters not testified to by her on direct examination was not presented for review, where bill of exceptions failed to set out her evidence in chief; statement that cross-examination was not germane to matters testified to by her on direct examination stating only ground of objection, and not being a certificate of the facts.
    Appeal from District Court, Haskell County; W. R. Chapman, Judge.
    Dixie Harris was convicted for theft of an automobile, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    W. H. Murchison, of Haskell, for appellant.
    Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover O. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.
   HAWKINS, J.

Appellant is under conviction for the theft of an automobile, with punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for two years.

We find it unnecessary to state the facts. They show beyond question appellant’s guilt.

Accused sought a suspended sentence and introduced a number of witnesses who testified to his good reputation. Appellant testified that he was wounded in the’ late war and his eyes were hurt; that he was gassed at St. Mihiel and was in the hospital for some time. Upon the issue of suspended sentence be offered to testify further that he enlisted in 1917 and was • discharged in 1919; that he took part in the Marne offensive from July 18, to August 6, 1918; was in the St. Mihiel offensive from September 12th to 16th; and was in the Argonne continuously from September 26 to November II, 1918. Upon the same issue he also offered in evidence an honorable discharge from the United States army. Upon objection these matters were excluded. The court committed no error in his ruling; such testimony not being admissible upon the issue of suspended sentence. See Mobley v. State, 89 Tex. Cr. R. 646, 232 S. W. 531; Moore v. State, 91 Tex. Cr. R. 118, 237 S. W. 931; Baker v. State, 87 Tex. Cr. R. 305, 221 S. W. 607; Wagley v. State, 87 Tex. Cr. R. 504, 224 S. W. 688; Johnson v. State, 91 Tex. Cr. R. 582, 241 S. W. 484; Brown v. State, 92 Tex. Cr. R. 147, 242 S. W. 218.

We find another bill in the record complaining that the state was permitted to cross-examine the wife of accused as to matters not testified to by her upon direct ex-a mination. The bill is defective- in that it fails to set out what her evidence in chief was. The statement in the bill that the cross-examination was not germane to matters testified to by her on direct examination are only grounds of objection, and is not a certificate of the fact. Brown v. State, 65 Tex. Cr. R. 121, 144 S. W. 265; Golden v. State, 66 Tex. Cr. R. 262, 146 S. W. 945; Neyland v. State, 79 Tex. Cr. R. 652, 187 S. W. 196

Finding no error in the record, the judgment is affirmed.  