
    JACKSON v. STATE.
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    June 25, 1913.)
    1. Criminal Law (§ 1064) — Appeal—Reservation of Grounds of Review — Motion foe New Trial.
    A motion for a new trial in a homicide case on the ground that the verdict was contrary to the law and the testimony, that the court failed to charge all the law of self-defense, to charge as to defendant’s knowledge of deceased’s character and disposition from what occurred just prior to the killing, as to deceased’s threats and condition, the proof showing him to be boisterous and under the influence of liquor, and that he followed up defendant and renewed the difficulty, or to charge with regard to deceased’s taking defendant’s money without his consent, and because of newly discovered evidence, was too general to present any question for consideration on appeal.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. '§§ 2676-2684; Dec. Dig. § 1064.] • '
    2. Homicide (§ 300) — Instructions—1Conformity to Evidence.
    On a trial for homicide, the failure to charge as to defendant’s knowledge of deceased’s character and disposition was not error, where there was nothing in the evidence calling for such charge.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Homicide, Cent. Dig. §§ 614, 616-620, 622-630; Dec. Dig. § 300.]
    3. Homicide (§ 300) — Instructions—Conformity to Evidence.
    On a trial for homicide, the failure to charge as to threats by deceased was not error, where no threats were shown by the evidence.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Homicide, Cent. Dig. §| 614, 616-620, 622-630; Dec. Dig. § 300.]
    4. Homicide (§ 300) — Instructions—Conformity to Evidence.
    On a trial for homicide, where, although the evidence showed that deceased was drunk and somewhat boisterous, no occasion for killing him on that account appeared, it was not error to fail to charge relative to his condition.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Homicide, Cent. Dig. §§ 614, 616-620, 622-630; Dec. Dig. § 300.]
    5. Homicide (§ 300) — Instructions—Conformity to Evidence.
    On a trial for homicide, where accused’s only defense was self-defense, and he claimed no defense because of deceased’s taking his money some minutes before the killing, the failure to charge relative to the taking of such money was not error.
    [Ed.- Note. — For other eases, see Homicide, Cent. Dig. §§ 614, 616-620, 622-630; Dec. Dig. § 300.]
    Appeal from District Court, Waller County; Sami. J. Styles, Judge.
    Dick Jackson, Jr., was convicted of manslaughter, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for tbe State.
    
      
       For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Deo. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep’r Indexes
    
   PRENDERGAST, J.

From a conviction of manslaughter this appeal is prosecuted.

There is no bill of exception in the record other than to the overruling of appellant’s motion for new trial.

In his motion for new trial he claims (1) the verdict is contrary to the law and the testimony; (2) the court failed to charge all the law of self-defense; (3) the court erred in failing to charge as to the defendant’s knowledge of the deceased’s character and disposition of the deceased from what occurred just prior to the killing; (4) because of newly discovered evidence; (5) the court failed to charge as to threats and condition of the deceased, the proof showing him to be boisterous and under influence of liquor and of following defendant up in the nighttime and renewing the difficulty; (6) the court failed to instruct the jury on deceased taking defendant’s money without .consent of defendant.

Under the uniform decisions of this court, all these complaints are too general to require the court to consider them. They point out no specific error. .

The evidence is amply sufficient to not only sustain the conviction for manslaughter, but of a higher .offense. No error is pointed out in the complaint that the court failed to charge all of the law of self-defense. Nothing in the evidence called for a charge by the court as to defendant’s knowledge of deceased’s character and disposition. No newly discovered evidence whatever is contained in the record. No threats are shown to have been made by deceased against appellant at any time. It does show that he was drunk and somewhat boisterous as well as others, but nothing of that kind gave the appellant the right to kill him or showed any occasion therefor on that account. What' charge appellant wanted on deceased taking appellant’s money without his consent is not' pointed out. Whatever of this occurred was some minutes before the killing, and not any defense or claimed defense on that account. Appellant’s only defense was self-defense. The great preponderance of the evidence was against him on this issue. The court submitted the question to the jury, and they found against him on that account.

No error is showD in the record, and the judgment will be affirmed.  