
    CRABBLE v. STATE.
    (No. 4085.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    May 24, 1916.)
    1. Criminal Law <@=>956(2) — Appeal—Record — Sufficiency.
    A motion for new trial on the ground that the jury received testimony, after they retired, in no way sworn to and not accompanied by affidavit, presents no question for review.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2373, 2374; Dec. Dig. <S=> 956(2).]
    2. Criminal Law <@=>1124(3) — Appeal—Record — Sufficiency.
    An appeal from an order overruling motion for new trial, which recites that evidence was heard thereon, cannot be considered in the absence from the record of the evidence heard on the motion.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 2948; Dec. Dig. <@=>1124(3).]
    Appeal from District Court, Wichita County; E. W. Nicholson, Judge.
    W. C. Grabble was convicted of passing a forged cheek, and, from the judgment and order denying new trial, he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    W. E. Huffhines, of Wichita Falls, for appellant. C. C. McDonald, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PRENDERGAST, P. J.

Appellant was convicted of passing a forged- check and assessed the lowest punishment.

No question is attempted to be raised, except by appellant’s motion for a new trial. One ground of tbis is that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the verdict. We have carefully read the statement of facts and are of the opinion that the evidence is amply sufficient to sustain the verdict. It is unnecessary to recite the testimony.

The other ground is, he alleges that the jury received other testimony after they retired. This motion is in no way sworn to by any one, and the affidavit of no person to substantiate the allegation is filed therewith. Therefore the question is not raised in such a way that this court could review it, as has many times been held. There is nothing, in the record to show, other than the bare un-sworn allegation, that it is true. The judgment of the court overruling the motion recites that evidence was heard thereon. What that evidence was, if there was any, is in no way shown in this record. On that account, too, no error is shown.

The judgment is therefore affirmed.

HARPER, J„ not present at consultation. 
      <£s»For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBI2R in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     