
    CLIFTON v. STATE.
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    May 7, 1913.)
    1. Criminal Law (§ 1090)—Appeal—Record —Sufficiency.
    The denial of a motion for a new trial because of the admission of alleged erroneous evidence could not be reviewed, where the record contained no bills of exception verifying such matters, and there was nothing in the record to show that evidence was admitted, other than as stated in the motion.
    [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2653, 2789, 2803-2822, 2825-2827, 2927, 2928, 2948, 3204; Dec. Dig. § 1090.]
    2. Criminal Law (§ 1122)—Appeal—Record —Burden op Showing Error.
    It was not shown that the court erred in giving a charge which tended to emphasize another portion of the charge, where it did not appear how this could have injured accused, and it was not in fact urged that it did injure him, especially where the evidence was not in the record, and did not accompany the record.
    [Ed. Note.'—Eor other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2940-2945; Dec. Dig. § 1122.]
    3. Criminal Law (§ 1121)—Appeal—Record —Sufficiency.
    The sufficiency* of the evidence to prove accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt could not be reviewed, where the evidence was not in the record, and did not accompany the record.
    [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2938, 2939; Dec. Dig. § 1121.]
    Appeal from District Court, Bexar County; W. S. Anderson, Judge.
    Harold Clifton, alias Howard Carrier, was convicted of theft, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
    
      
      For other oases see same topic and section NUMBER in Deo. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep’r Indexes
    
   DAVIDSON, P. J.

Appellant was convicted of theft of money, alleged to be $500; his punishment being assessed at two years’ confinement in the penitentiary.

The first ground of the motion for new trial is to the effect that the court erred in admitting in evidence a copy of the testimony of Eva Gilmore, given at the examining trial, for the reason that same is and was an unsigned copy of said testimony, and in so doing the defendant was deprived of his right, under the Constitution and laws of this state, to be confronted with the witnesses against him on the trial of his cause; and, second, the court erred in admitting in evidence the testimony of the witness Eva Gilmore touching a civil contract between defendant and herself, the same being based upon a civil contract in writing, and which evidence tended to prejudice the jury against him. Suffice it to say, the record does not contain bills of exception verifying these matters, and there is nothing in the record to show evidence was admitted, other than as stated as grounds of the motion. Of course, under these circumstances those two grounds of the motion cannot be considered.

The third ground is: The “court erred in the second paragraph of its general charge, on page 5, for the reason that the same tends to emphasize the first paragraph of said charge on page 2.” This ground is very general, to say the least of it There is nothing pointed out that would tend to show any error, or even if one charge emphasized the other, how it could have injured appellant,' and in fact it is not urged that it did injure him. And it may be further stated in this connection the evidence is not in the record; nor does it accompany the record.

The remaining ground is that the state failed to ■ prove beyond • a reasonable doubt that defendant committed the theft charged. This cannot be reviewed, in the absence of the testimony. ‘ •

The judgment is affirmed.  