
    GALLARDO v. STATE.
    (No. 9196.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    June 10, 1925.)
    1. Criminal law ©==>1092 (8) — Statement of facts not filed in time cannot be considered.
    Statement of facts, which was filed many days beyond time allowed by order of court within which it may be filed, cannot be considered.
    2. Criminal law ©=>1091 (11) — Bill of exceptions in question and answer form not considered.
    A bill of exceptions which is in question and answer form cannot be considered.
    3. Criminal law ©=> 1119(3) — Bill of exceptions held to show no error in trial court’s remark.
    Bill of exception complaining of remark of trial jqdge, at time indictment wag to be head referring to another case against codefendant tried separately, to which no exception was made, nor request for correction, withdrawal or explanation, held not to show error.
    4.Criminal law ©=>1120(2) — Bill of exceptions complaining of question asked defendant but failing to show reply held tO' present no error.
    Bill of exceptions complaining of question asked defendant as to how many times he was convicted for selling liquor, and showing that objection thereto was overruled, but failing to show what reply if any .was made, presents no error.
    Appeal from Criminal District Court, Cameron County; A. W. Cunningham, Judge.
    Ricardo Gallardo was convicted of unlawfully transporting intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    A. L. Lewis, of Harlingen, for appellant. Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover O. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.
   MORROW, P. J.

The offense is unlawfully transporting intoxicating liquor; punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for a period of two years.

The caption does not show the date of the adjournment of the court at which the case was tried. The term began on the 1st day of September, and, by law, could remain in session for only five weeks. See Complete Tex. St. 1920, art. 80, p. 32, Dist. 28, or Vernon’s Ann. Oiv. St. Supp. 1918, art. 30, subd. 28.

The statement of facts upon which reliance was had was filed May 7, 1925, many days beyond the tiine allowed by the order of the court within which it might be filed. Por that reason it cannot be considered.

Bill of exceptions No. 1 cannot be considered, because it is in question and answer form.

In bill No. 2 it appears that the appellant was jointly indicted with one Vallejo, and that a severance was demanded' during the trial of Vallejo. The members of the venire, save those impaneled in this case, were excluded from the courtroom. After Vallejo’s case was submitted to the jury, the veniremen not upon that jury were called for service in the appellant’s case. The parties announced ready for trial, and the jury was impaneled and sworn. When it became time-to read the indictment, a remark was made by the court that it was the jury in the other case. Exception was made to the remark at the time, but no request was made for any correction, withdrawal, or explanation of it. As we understand the qualification of the bill, in selecting the jury the veniremen were made aware- of the joint indictment of the two. As presented, the matter shows no error.

From bill No. 3, it appears that the state’,s attorney, in the cross-examination of the appellant, who was testifying as a witness in his own behalf, propounded to him this question: “How many times have you been convicted in the federal court for selling liquor?” The bill shows that the objection to the question was overruled, but fails to show what reply, if any, was made,

Failing to perceive any errors, the judgment is affirmed. 
      igr^For other eases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     