
    WALLACE v. STATE.
    (No. 5871.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    June 23, 1920.)
    1. Criminal law <&wkey;>1116 — Variances must be shown by record.
    A conviction for forgery cannot be reversed for variance between the forged name as alleged in the indictment and the name signed to the instrument, where the record does not show what name was signed to the instrument.
    2. Forgery <&wkey;34(8) — Difference between “Biekerell” and “Bickneii” as forged name is fatal variance.
    There is a fatal variance between an indictment charging forgery of the name “Biekerell” to a check and proof that the name forged was “Bickneii.”
    3. Criminal law <&wkey;603(2) — Motion to continue must be sworn to.
    A conviction will not be reversed for denial of a motion to continue or postpone which was not sworn to by accused or by any one for him.
    4. Criminal law <&wkey; 1090 (7) — Refusal to continue not reviewabie without bill of exceptions.
    The refusal to continue or postpone a criminal trial must be verified 'by bill of exceptions to authorize review of the ruling on appeal.
    5. Criminal' law &wkey;al090(8) — Error in admitting evidence must be shown by bill of exceptions.
    A conviction cannot be reversed for error in admitting testimony where the record does not contain bill of exceptions to the rulings of the trial court, though the motion for new trial charged error in admitting testimony.
    Appeal from District Court, Bexar County; W. S. Anderson, Judge.
    W. H. Wallace was convicted of forgery, and be appeals.
    Affirmed.
    
      Alvin M. Owsley, Asst. Atty. Gen., for tlie State.
   DAVIDSON, P. J.

The jury allotted appellant two years in the penitentiary for forgery.

The indictment contains two counts, one for forgery, and the other for passing the alleged forged instrument.

Motion to quash on the ground that the chech or draft was described as the act of “J. Bickerell,” whereas the name of “J. W. Bicknell” is signed to the instrument, and that there is a variance between the allegation and the facts, was overruled. The indictment alleges the name of “Bi.ckerell,” and not “Bicknell.” If there was developed on the trial that “Bicknell,” and not “Bickerell,” was the forged name, it is not made to so appear by the record. If such was the case, there would be a fatal variance. The facts have not been sent with the record; therefore we are unable to determine that question.

There was a motion made to postpone or continue the case. This was not sworn to by appellant, or any one for him.

Nor was exception reserved to the court’s refusal to grant the application. Refusal to continue or postpone must be verified by bill of exceptions in order to authorize this court to review the ruling of the trial court.

The record does not contain any bills of exception to rulings of the trial court. The motion for new trial states the court erred in admitting testimony, but this is not verified by bills of exception.

The record presents no reversible error.

The judgment is' affirmed. 
      (fe^For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     