
    QUINN v. STATE.
    (No. 9464.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Nov. 11, 1925.
    Rehearing Denied Feb. 10, 1926.)
    1. Criminal law,<&wkey;l 144(12)— Bills of exceptions not complete within themselves, evidence will be presumed properly admitted.
    Bills of exceptions, not setting out sufficient statement of facts to show any error in admission of testimony complained of and not stating that facts set out were all the facts pertaining to matter, cannot be considered; evidence being presumed properly admitted.
    2. Criminal law &wkey;>l 122(1) — Bill of exceptions to refusal of charges not considered where not showing time charges were presented.
    Bill of exceptions to refusal of requested charges, failing to show that'requested charges were presented to court before his general charge ■ and showing only that they were presented upon trial of cause, cannot be considered.
    
      On Motion for Rehearing.
    3. Criminal law &wkey;5'366(6) — Declarations of deceased few minutes after shooting admissible as res gestae.
    In prosecution for manslaughter, declarations of deceased away from scene of shooting within very few minutes after shooting occurred, while he was still bleeding, held admissible -as part of the res gestee.
    Commissioners’ Decision.
    Appeal from -District Court, Montague County; Yineent Stine, Judge.
    Ben Quinn was convicted of manslaughter, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    J. S. Jameson, of Montague, for appellant.
    Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., of Green-ville, and Nat Gentry, Jr., Asst. State’s Atty., of Tyler, for the State.
   BAKER, J.

The appellant was convicted in the district court of Montague county .for the offense of manslaughter and his punishment assessed at two years’ confinement in .the penitentiary.

The facts, briefly stated, .-show that the appellant and deceased were brothers-in-law, and on the night of the difficulty deceased went to the home of his father and mother-in-law, where appellant also resided, for the purpose of inquiring of appellant as to some reports that had been circulated concerning him and where the record discloses that appellant and deceased became involved in a violent quarrel, and'appellant contends that deceased after using very opprobrious epithets toward himself, father! and mother, and refusing to leave the premises, went into the room where his father and mother were and continued his abusive language and epithets, and upon being requested again by him (appellant) to leave said premises and being informed unless he did so that he (appellant) would hill him, that he left the room and started out into the yard and returned as if to come bach in the house with a drawn knife, when appellant shot him and he went off. It was the contention of the state, as shown by the record, that the appellant shot the deceased not in self-defense or from any adequate cause. This is a sufficient statement of the facts as a basis for this opinion. The appellant has not favored this court with a brief, but we find four bills of exceptions in the record. •

Bills of exceptions 1 and 2 complain of the action of the court in permitting the witnesses Wash McGrew and Jim McGrew to testify to a conversation had with the deceased within a very few minutes after the shooting occurred, when the deceased was up to the house of Wash McGrew bleeding, and requested him»to call for a doctor and to carry him home, and in said conversation stated that he was shot by the appellant and related to said witness Jim McGrew how the trouble came about. Bill of exception No.'l the court qualifies by stating that it was admitted on the ground of res gestae and as to the fact set out in said bill “the court stated the above facts were also admitted and undisputed.” Bill of exception? No. 2 the court .qualifies by stating that the evidence complained of therein was admitted as res gestae and as a dying declaration. Both of said bills are insufficient in that they do not set out a sufficient statement of the facts to show this court any alleged error in the admission thereof and do not state that same were all the -facts pertaining to the matters inquired about, and in fact fail as'presented to show any error in the ruling of the court thereon, and in this condition we must presume under the law that the court rightfully admitted said testimony. Branch, in his P. C., section 1864, states:

“That a bill of exceptions taken to the supposed error in admitting proof of- a dying declaration without laying the proper predicate to be sufficient must contain, and state it contains, all the predicate laid upon which the declaration was admitted, and must also set out the declaration” — citing Edens v. State, 41 Tex. Cr. R. 523, 55 S. W. 815, and other authorities.

This court has repeatedly held that bills of exception must be .complete within themselves and show the error complained of before this court will consider same. Hubbard v. State, 94 Tex. Cr. R. 480, 251 S. W. 1054; Cavanar v. State, 99 Tex. Cr. R. 446, 269 S. W. 1053.

In bills of exceptions Nos. 3 and 4, complaint is made to the refusal of the court to submit appellant’s special charges to the jury as to abandonment of the difficulty and the belief of appellant that if the deceased had entered the room of his parents for the purpose of injuring them that he had a right to arm himself, and to the effect that it is unlawful for any person to use vulgar or indecent language or swearing or cursing near a private residence, and if the deceased went into or nqar the private residence of the appellant or his father and mother and created a disturbance, the appellant had a right „to eject him from said premises and had a right to arm himself for said purpose. There are no objections filed to the court’s general charge and said special charge as above mentioned, nor do the bills of exceptions embracing same show that they were presented to the court or that his attention was called to same, and that he was requested to give same to the jury before the court read his general charge to the jury. In fact, the record is silent as to what time said charges were presented to the court, except the bill stated it was upon the trial of said cause. This court has repeatedly held that under such circumstánces we cannot and will not consider such charges. Crouchette v. State, 99 Tex. Cr. R. 572, 271 S. W. 99, and the authorities therein cited.

After a careful examination of this record, we are forced to the conclusion that there is no error shown in the trial of this case, and the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed, and it is accordingly so ordered.

PER OURIAM. The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court.-

On. Motion for Rehearing.

HAWKINS, J.

In his motion appellant again urges the points relied on in original submission. They were considered and we think properly disposed of in our former opinion. The statements of deceased made to Wash McGrew and Jim McGrew were properly admitted in evidence as res gestae declarations.

As to the incompleteness of the bills complaining of the refusal of special charges, in addition to Crouchette v. State, 99 Tex. Cr. R. 572, 271 S. W. 99, we refer to Denton v. State, 76 Tex. Cr. R. 58, 172 S. W. 796; Maddox v. State, 76 Tex. Cr. R. 217, 173 S. W. 1026; Jones v. State, 74 Tex. Cr. R. 205, 167 S. W. 1110; Medford v. State, 86 Tex. Cr. R. 237, 216 S. W. 175; Lowe v. State, 88 Tex. Cr. R. 316, 226 S. W. 674; Jones v. State, 89 Tex. Cr. R. 577, 232 S. W. 847; Middleton v. State, 86 Tex. Cr. R. 307, 217 S. W. 1046.

The motion for rehearing is overruled. 
      <3&wkey;For other oases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER. in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     