
    BRADFORD v. STATE.
    (No. 7826.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Oct. 24, 1923.)
    1. Criminal law <&wkey;1120(4)— Bills of exceptions to questions asked which do not include answers present no error.
    Bills of exceptions complaining of questions asked various witnesses, which do not include the answers of the witness, present no error.
    2. Criminal law &wkey;>677 — Withdrawal of evidence after witness had disclosed a lack of qualification to so testify held not error.
    Withdrawal of particular evidence from the jury after the witness had disclosed on cross-examination that she was not qualified to speak relative to such matters held not error.
    3. Criminal law &wkey;?598(6) — Denial of continuance held not error in view of delay in issuing process and failure to show witness left state.
    Denial of an application for a continuance because of the absence of a witness held not error where it appeared that process for the absent witness, who was alleged to be temporarily out of the state, had not been sought until the day before the trial, and the time of her departure was not shown.
    <§^>For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
    Appeal from Tarrant County Court, at Law; P. W. Seward, Judge.
    Ella Bradford was convicted of keeping a bawfiyhouse, and she appeals.
    Affirmed.
    R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   HAWKINS, J.

Appellant was convicted for keeping a “bawdyhouse,” and condemned to pay a fine of $200, and be imprisoned 20 days in the county jail.

Bills of exception 2, 3, and 5 complain of certain questions asked by counsel for the state of various witnesses, but in neither bill is the answer of the witness shown. This presents no error. Branch’s Ann. P. C. § 210, p. 134.

The learned trial judge committed no error in withdrawing from the jury certain evidence given by Mrs. Wallace on direct examination after it developed on her cross-examination that she was not qualified to speak relative to the matters so withdrawn.

The court committed no error in 'denying the application for continuance. On January 16th an order was made setting this case for trial on January 26th. Not until the day preceding the trial did appellant ask for process for the absent witness who was then alleged to be temporarily out of the state. When she departed is not shown. If proper diligence had been used in securing process, for aught we know from the record, the witness might have been served before having left Port Worth. If the diligence had been sufficient we doubt if the refusal of the continuance would have presented error. In the light of all the evidence in the record the learned trial judge would not have abused his discretion had he found the proposed testimony of the absent witness not probably true. No affidavit of the witness was attached to the motion for new trial.

The other bill of exception (No. 4) presents no error. '

The evidence is sufficient to support the judgment, and same is affirmed.  