
    CUELLAR v. STATE.
    (No. 11910.)
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    May 30, 1928.
    1. Criminal law <§=»! 120(1)— On appeal from conviction, objections to evidence, not brought before appellate court, cannot be passed on.
    On appeal from conviction, objections turning on evidence which was not brought before appellate court cannot be passed on.
    2. Criminal law <§=»! 124(1) — Bill of exception to, overruling motion for new trial, embracing ail supposed errors set forth as grounds of motion, presents nothing for review.
    In criminal prosecution, bill reserving ex« ception to overruling motion for new trial, embracing all supposed errors set forth as grounds for motion, presents nothing for review.
    Appeal from District Court, Frio County; W. O. Murray, Jr., Judge.
    Manuel Cuellar was convicted of rape on a female under 18 years of age, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Mason Maney and Walter Stout', both of Pearsall, for appellant.
    A. A. Dawson, Staté’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.
   HAWKINS, J.

Conviction is for rape upon a female under 18 years of age; punishment being 5 years in the penitentiary.

The record is without a statement of facts. Three bills of exception are found in the transcript. One brings forward exception to the instructions given to the jury. In some respects the charge was amended in response to objection. Other objections turn on the evidence. Without knowing what evidence was before the court, it is impossible to appraise these complaints.

Another' bill complains of the argument of the district attorney. We find nothing in the bill manifesting error. The argument in most instances could not Be held objectionable. If the purpose of the bill was to complain that the argument was a reference to the failure of the defendant to testify, it is incomplete in two particulars: (1) There is no recital in the bill advising us that he did not testify; (2) no facts are certified in the bill from which we could conclude that it was a necessary inference that the argument had reference to defendant’s failure to testify. Boone v. State, 90 Tex. Cr. R. 374, 235 S. W. 580; Howard v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 1 S.W.(2d) 289.

The only other bill reserves exception to overruling the motion for new trial which embraces all supposed errors set forth as grounds for the motion. Such a bill presents no matter demanding consideration. Ivory v. State, 101 Tex. Cr. R. 123, 274 S. W. 565; Holt v. State, 98 Tex. Cr. R. 248, 266 S. W. 394.

The judgment is affirmed.  