
    CRINER v. STATE.
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Oct. 8, 1913.)
    Ceiminal Law (§ 1098) — “Statement oe Facts” — What Constitutes.
    A stenographic report of the trial of a case, made out in the form of questions and answers and including the objections and argument of counsel on both sides on the objections, together with the remarks and rulings of the court, cannot be considered as a statement of facts on appeal.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2863, 2865; Dec. Dig. §, 1098.]
    Appeal from District Court, Henderson County; John S. Prince, Judge.
    Sanko Criner was convicted of forgery, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Miller & Miller, of Athens, for appellant. O. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
    
      
      For other cases sea same.topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep’r Indexes
    
   PRENDERGAST, P. J.

The appellant appeals from a conviction for forgery with the lowest penalty prescribed by law fixed as his punishment.

There is no statement of facts with the record. There is the stenographer’s report of the trial of the case, made out in question and answer form, including objections, arguments of attorneys for both sides on the objections, the remarks and rulings of the court, and such other matters as are taken down by court stenographers on the trial of the case. This, we presume, is intended as a statement of facts.

Under the statutes of this state and the many and uniform decisions of this court, this document cannot be considered by this court as a statement of facts. Hargrave v. State, 53 Tex. Cr. R. 148, 109 S. W. 163; Essary v. State, 53 Tex. Cr. R. 596, 111 S. W. 927; Baird v. State, 51 Tex. Cr. R. 324, 101 S. W. 991; Brown v. State, 57 Tex. Cr. R. 269, 122 S. W. 565; King v. State, 57 Tex. Cr. R. 369, 123 S. W. 135; Kemper v. State, 57 Tex. Cr. R. 356, 123 S. W. 131; Felder v. State, 59 Tex. Cr. R. 144, 127 S. W. 1055; Choate v. State, 59 Tex. Cr. R. 266, 128 S. W. 624: Many other cases might be cited, but we deem it unnecessary.

The questions attempted to be raised by appellant cannot be considered in the absence of a statement of facts.

The judgment is therefore affirmed.  