
    CLANTON v. STATE.
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    June 26, 1912.)
    1. Criminal Law (§ 1099) — Statements of Facts — Allowance—Signing.
    A statement of facts, not signed by the attorneys or by the trial judge, cannot be considered.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2866-2880; Dec. Dig. § 1099.]
    2. Cbiminal Law (§ 1090) — Appeal—Bills of Exception — Necessity.
    Refusal of the court to continue a criminal ■case, and alleged errors in the admission and rejection of evidence, cannot be considered, in the absence of bills of exceptions reserved thereto.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2789, 2803-2827. 2927, 2928, 2948, 3204; Dec. Dig. § 1090.]
    
      3. Ceiminal Law (§ 1097) —Appeal — Review — 'Variance.
    A claim of variance between the allegations and the proof cannot be reviewed, in the absence of a statement of facts.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2862, 2864, 2926, 2934, 2938, 2939, 2941, 2942, 2947; Dec. Dig. § 1097.]
    Appeal from Criminal District Court, Dallas County; Robt. B. Seay, Judge.
    Chester Clanton was convicted of robbery, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    ■O. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
    
      
      For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep’r Indexes
    
   DAVIDSON, P. J.

Appellant was convicted of robbery; his punishment being assessed at 10 years’ confinement in the penitentiary.

There is in the transcript what we suppose was intended to be consummated into a statement of facts. If so, it cannot be considered, for the reason it is not signed by the attorneys, nor approved by the trial judge, and, therefore, is of no avail.

The refusal of the court to continue the case, in the absence of bill of exceptions, cannot be revised. Nor can those grounds of the motion for new trial which complain of the action of the court in the admission and rejection of testimony be considered. Bills of exception were not reserved.

There are other matters complained of with reference to variance, or alleged variance, between the allegations in the indictment and the evidence. The robbery in the case was alleged to be by assault alone, and the further allegation of the use or exhibition of firearms is not included in the indictment. One of the grounds suggested by the motion is that the evidence showed that the assault was with a deadly weapon, and it was used and exhibited in the commission of the offense. The grounds of the motion stated a razor was used and exhibited. These matters cannot be reviewed, in the absence of a statement of facts.

The judgment is affirmed.  