
    COOKE v. STATE.
    (No. 7807.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    June 13, 1923.
    Rehearing Denied Nov. 7, 1923.)
    1. Criminal law &wkey;>742( I) — Veracity of witness is for jury.
    , Whether in a prosecution for selling intoxicating liquor the state’s witness told the truth when he testified that he bought whisky from accused was a question for the jury, though there was circumstantial evidence to the contrary.
    2. Criminal law &wkey;>IO90(l6) — -Bill of exceptions to order refusing new trial not necessary unless motion presents some question of fact not previously before court.
    It is not necessary to reserve a bill of exceptions to trial court’s refusal of a motion for new trial unless some question of fact not before the court in the trial is raised and presented in the motion.
    3. Criminal law <&wkey;64l (I) — Accused could not complain he was forced to go to trial without counsel.
    Where the trial judge, when told by accused when the case was called that he was without an attorney, postponed the case for several days to give accused an opportunity to secure counsel, accused could not complain that he was forced to go into trial without counsel.
    4. Criminal law <&wkey;>64l (3) — Except in capital cases court need not appoint attorneys to represent accused-
    It is not the duty of the trial courts to appoint attorneys to represent those accused of crime except in capital cases.
    &wkey;>For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
    Appeal from Criminal District Court, Williamson County; James B. Hamilton, Judge.
    Henry Cooke was convicted of selling intoxicating liquor, and appeals.
    'Affirmed.
    
      Jeff Murray, of Runge, for appellant.
    R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   LATTIMORE, J.

Appellant was convicted in the criminal district court of Williamson county of selling intoxicating liquor, and his punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for two years.

Jose Martinez testified positively that he bought whisky from appellant for which he paid. Appellant did not take the witness stand or deny the statement of Martinez, but did place several witnesses on the stand by whom he attempted to show circumstantially that the said witness for the state did not tell the truth. These matters were entirely for the jury.

The record is devoid of any bills of exception except one complaining of the court’s refusal of a motion for new trial. It is not necessary to reserve a bill of exceptions to the action of the trial court in this regard, unless some question of fact not before the court in the trial be raised and, presented in such motion.

It is complained that appellant had employed an attorney living in a distant county to represent him, who advised him before the trial that he was sick and not able to attend court, and that appellant informed the trial judge of this fact, but was forced to go into trial without an attorney. The record reveals the fact that, when the ease was called and appellant told the learned trial judge that he was without an attorney, the case was postponed for several days in order to give him an opportunity to secure counsel. The matter complained of is thus entirely met and overcome. It is not the duty of trial courts to appoint attorneys to represent those accused of crime except in capital eases.

Finding no error in the record, the judgment will be affirmed.  