
    MILLER v. STATE.
    (No. 10070.)
    (Court of. Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    March 31, 1926.
    Rehearing Denied May 5, 1926.)
    1. Criminal law <&wkey;l091(ll).
    Bills of exception in question and answer form will not be considered.
    2. Criminal law <&wkey;!l!l(3).
    Appellant, accepting court’s qualification of bill of exceptions, is bound thereby.
    3. Criminal law <&wkey;l092(II) — Appellant may have court certify that he objected and excepted to qualification of bill of exceptions, in which case bill, as originally prepared by appellant, will be considered, if court files none of his own.
    Appellant may have court certify that he objected and excepted to qualification of bill of exceptions, in which ease, if court files no bill of his own, bill, as originally prepared by appellant, will be considered without such qualification. •
    On Motion for Rehearing.
    4. Criminal law <&wkey;747.
    Conflicts in evidence as to guilt or innocence are for jury.
    5. Criminal law &wkey;>l 111 (3).
    Appellate court must accept trial court’s qualification of bills of exceptions as true, in absence of objection thereto.
    q&wkey;For other oases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER. in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
    
      ' Commissioners’ Decisiqn.
    Appeal from District Court, Potter County; Henry S. Bishop, Judge.
    Jake Miller was convicted of aggravated assault, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    E. O. Northcutt, of Amarillo, for appellant.
    Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., of Austin, and Kobt. M. Lyles, Asst. State’s Atty., of Groesbeck, for the State.
   BERRY, J.

The offense is aggravated assault, and the punishment is a fine of $100 and confinement in the county jail for a period of four months.

Some of the bills of exceptions are in question and answer form, and, under the repeated decisions of this court, will not be considered for that reason. Each of the other bills are so qualified by the court as to show no error. In every instance where any bill raises a question, appellant has accepted them with a qualification placed thereon by the trial court which shows beyond controversy that the court’s ruling was correct. We have x'epeatedly called attention of counsel to the fact that, when the court qualifies a bill of exceptions and appellant accepts it as qualified, he is bound by the qualification. If he desires to relieve himself from this situation, the decisions of this court have repeatedly stated that his right to so do is clear and plain. He may simply have the court certify that he objected and excepted to the qualification placed on the bill by the trial court, and if the trial court files no bill of exception of his own, then the bill as originally prepared by the appellant will be considered without the court’s qualification thereto. It will not avail an appellant to accept the court’s qualification to a bill without objection and then complain concerning the same. We have carefully examined the statement of facts in this case, and while the evidence is highly conflicting, yet we have reached the ■conclusion that it is sufficient to support the ■verdict.

Finding no error in the record, the judgment is in all things affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal .Appeals, and approved by the court.

MORROW, P. J., absent. '

On Motion for Rehearing.

HAWKINS, J.

We have examined the record in the light of appellant’s motion and are •confirmed in the view that the original opinion properly disposed of the case.

The facts sustain the conviction. The conflicts in the evidence are for the jury to determine, and they have settled them in favor of the state.

Appellant’s complaint that the court’s qualification to his bills are not borne out by the record is not available where the bills are accepted without objection to the qualifications. This court must accept the qualification as a recital of the true facts in the ab sence of an objection to it.

The motion is overruled.  