
    MOORE v. STATE.
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    May 31, 1911.)
    1. Criminal Law (§ 1090) — -Rulings on Evidence — Review—Bill of Exceptions.
    A motion for new trial on the ground that ■the court erred in admitting evidence, where no bill of exceptions was reserved, presents no question for review.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Dec. Dig. § 1090.]
    2. Criminal Law (•§ 1097) — Questions Reviewable — Sufficiency of Evidence — Statement of Facts.
    In the absence of a statement of facts, the questions of the insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the judgment, and that the evidence discloses an offense not charged in the indictment, are not reviewable.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Dec. Dig. § 1097.] .
    Appeal from Haskell County Court; A. J. Smith, Judge.
    M. B. Moore was convicted of aggravated assault, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
    
      
      For r.tiler cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep’r Indexes
    
   HARPER, J.-

Appellant was indicted, tried, and convicted of unlawfully committing an aggravated assault on J. L. Meeks, and his punishment assessed at a fine of $50, from which, judgment he prosecutes this appeal.

There are but three grounds stated in the motion for new trial: (1) The court erred in admitting certain testimony. No bill of exception was reserved; consequently no question is presented for us to pass- on. (2) Because the evidence shows the appellant, if guilty of any offense, guilty of a different offense than that charged in the indictment; and (3) the insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the judgment. There being no statement of facts in the record, the last two grounds present nothing we can review.

The judgment is affirmed.  