
    Noce Smith v. The State.
    No. 3776.
    Decided November 3, 1915.
    1. — Continuance—Motion for New Trial.
    In the absence of a bill of exceptions, the question of overruling a motion for continuance can not be considered on appeal.
    :2. — Same—Statement of Eact — Sufficiency, of the Evidence.
    In the absence of a statement of facts, the sufficiency of the evidence and matters growing out of the evidence can not be considered on appeal.
    Appeal from the Criminal District Court of Dallas. Tried below before the Hon. Eobt. B. Seay.
    Appeal from a conviction of theft; penalty, a fine of $100 and one ■day confinement in the county jail.
    The opinion states the ease.
    No brief on file for appellant.
    
      O. G. McDonaldAssistant Attorney General, for the State.
   DAVIDSON, Judge.

Appellant was given a misdemeanor punishment under a felony indictment charging him with theft of personal property.

Motion for a continuance was overruled, and that is assigned as error in the motion for new trial. Appellant failed to reserve a bill of exception, therefore this matter can not be considered. All the other matters in the motion for new trial pertain to the sufficiency of the evidence and matters growing out of the evidence, which can not be considered without the testimony. The record does not contain a statement of facts.

The judgment will be affirmed.

Affirmed.  