
    Joe Meyer v. State of Texas.
    No. 5359.
    Decided April 2, 1919.
    Disloyalty Act—Practice on Appeal.
    Where, upon appeal Irom a conviction of a violation of the Act of the Thirty-fifth Legislature known as the Disloyalty Act, it appeared from the record that the, appellant was convicted upon a valid indictment, the judgment must be affirmed, in the absence of a statement of facts and bills . of exception. •
    Appeal from the Criminal District Court of Travis; Tried below before the Hon. James R. Hamilton.
    Appeal from a conviction of the disloyalty act; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary.
    The • opinion states the case.
    No brief on file for appellant.
    
      E. A. Berry, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.
   LATTIMORE, Judge.

this case appellant was charged with violation of the Act of the Thirty-fifth Legislature creating the offense of disloyalty and upon trial his punishment was fixed at two years confinement in the State penitentiary.

The case comes before us without any bills of exceptions or ’statement of facts in the record, and no question raised by the motion for new trial except the insufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict.

We have examined the indictment which appears to follow the language of the statute. The language imputed to the appelL therein is sufficient, if uttered, to constitute a violation of the law.

No error appearing in the record, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed.

Affirmed.  