
    ROLLINS v. STATE.
    (No. 6801.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    March 15, 1922.)
    Criminal law <&wkey; 1097(3) — Materiality of testimony of absent witness not determined in absence of statement of facts.
    Where a bill of exceptions called in question the refusal to grant a continuance for an absent witness, the materiality of his testimony cannot be determined in the absence of a statement of facts.
    Appeal from District Court, Brazoria County; M. S. Munson, Judge..
    Link Rollins was convicted of robbery, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    George H. Currier, of Alvin, and A. R Rucks, of Angleton, for appellant.
    R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   MORROW, P. J.

The offense is robbery; punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for five years.

We find no statement of facts.

A bill of exceptions calling in question the ruling of the court in refusing to grant a motion for a continuance because of the absence of a witness appears in the record. The materiality of the testimony which would have been given by the absent witness cannot be determined in the absence of a statement of facts. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in overruling the application for a continuance, or whether the testimony of the absent witness bore such -relation to the facts which were in evidence as would have made it incumbent upon the trial court to grant a new trial, it is impossible to decide upon appeal without knowing what facts were in evidence. The precedents holding that the denial of an application for a continuance cannot be reviewed under such circumstances are numerous and conclusive. Willison v. State, 7 Tex. App. 400; Choate v. State, 59 Tex. Cr. R. 266, 128 S. W. 624; and other cases listed in Vemon’s Texas Crim. Statutes, vol. 2, p. 814, note 7.

No errors having been pointed out by the . appellant or discovered by us, the judgment is affirmed.  