
    PAGE v. STATE.
    (No. 9428.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Nov. 4, 1925.
    Rehearing Denied April 7, 1926.)
    1. Criminal law &wkey;>7l9(3) — Argument of district attorney in prosecution for sale of liquor that thousands of homes had been ruined by sale of liquor herd not objectionablei as extraneous statement of fact.
    In prosecution for selling liquor, statement of district attorney that thousands of homes had been ruined by unlawful sale of liquor was but a general opinion, and not objectionable as an extraneous statement of fact.
    2. Criminal law <&wkey;>724(2) — Referring to defendant charged with selling liquor as a “bootlegger” held to present no- error.
    Reference in state’s attorney’s argument to accused as “that bootlegging defendant” presents no error, where defendant was shown to be selling whisky in violation of law, which is what court understands to be a bootlegger.
    3. Criminal law &wkey;>723(l) — Statement by district attorney as to character of conduct that could be indulged in under suspended sentence held not objectionable.
    In prosecution for sale of liquor, statement by district attorney as to character of conduct that could be indulged in by defendant, if he was granted a suspended sentence, held not objectionable.
    On Motion for Rehearing.
    4. Criminal law <&wkey;>! i 19(4)— Bill of exceptions, to bring up objectionable argument for review, should state that objection was made, reasons therefor, and that they were made known to trial court.
    Bill of exceptions, to bring up objectionable argument for review, should state that objection was made, reasons therefor, that they were made known to trial court, and that court permitted action complained of as erroneous.
    Appeal from District Court, Garza- County; Clark M. Mullican, Judge.
    Wiley Page was convicted of selling intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    John T. Buckley and Young & Stinchcomb, all of Longview, for appellant.
    Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty.,. of Austin, and Nat Gentry, Jr., Asst. State’s Atty., of Tyler, for the State.
   LATTIMORE, J.

Prom a conviction in the district court of Garza county of selling intoxicating liquor, with punishment fixed at one year in the penitentiary, this appeal is taken.

Appellant was indicted at the October term, 1924, of the district court of Garza county, but was not tried until the March term of 1925. The latter fact is overlooked by the state’s attorney in his contention that the bills of exception and statement of facts were filed too late. The statement of facts amply shows a sale by appellant of the intoxicating liquor in question at or about the time mentioned in the indictment.

Appellant’s bill of exceptions No. 1 complains of the argument of the district attorney stating that thousands of homes had been ruined by the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor. Manifestly this was but a general opinion of the state’s attorney, and. not an attempt at an extraneous statement of a fact by him.

Reference in argument of state’s attorney to the accused as “that bootlegging defendant” would not seem to present any error. The state’s case clearly showed appellant to be selling whisky in violation of the law, and this is what we understand to be a bootlegger. The only other bill of exceptions is to a statement by the district attorney as to the character of conduct that could he indulged in by the appellant if he was granted á suspended sentence. We find nothing objectionable in the statements made.

The judgment will be affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

Appellant makes a persuasive motion based largely on supposed harmful utterances by the district attorney in his argument. We have again reviewed the bills of exception presenting this complaint. Bill of exceptions No. 3 is as follows:

“Be it remembered that during the trial of. the above entitled and numbered cause the district attorney, Park Dalton, made the following statement to the jury:
“ ‘Gentlemen, if you grant the defendant suspended sentence, he can commit petty larceny, he can be a vagrant the rest of his life, and commit any other misdemeanor, and he cannot be touched. He can also go into New Mexico or any other state and commit a felony, and no one will know of his suspended sentence here.’
“Clark M. Mullican, District Judge.”

It will be noted that this entire bill simply amounts to a certificate of the district judge that the state’s attorney made a certain statement to the jury. Whether it was then objected to or an exception taken at that time, or a request that the jury be instructed not to consider the statement, are matters about which this record is entirely silent. One who desires to bring before this court for review objectionable argument or other matters which he deems erroneous should in some appropriate way make known to us the thing thus objected to, stating in the bill of exceptions thait he did object to it and the reasons for such objection, and it should appear from the bill itself that such reasons were made known to the trial court, and that, after having the matter thus fully presented he permitted the action complained of as erroneous. It is á matter of regret to this court when matters are not properly presented to it, which are deemed objectionable by the accused. .

The other complaint of the argument is that appearing in bill of exceptions No. 1, which is discussed in our former opinion, and we now see no reason for concluding that it was not properly disposed of. The jury gave to appellant the lowest penalty, and the facts leaving no doubt as to his guilt, we are unable to bring ourselves to believe that any of the matters complained of should cause a reversal.

The motion for rehearing will be overruled. 
      <S^Foi* other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     