
    MEYER v. STATE.
    (No. 9721.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Jan. 20, 1926.)
    
      1. Criminal law <&wkey;-M 16 — Reviewing tribunal unauthorized to consider bills of exceptions not showing in themselves errors complained of.
    Reviewing tribunal is unauthorized to consider bills of exceptions complaining of trial court’s refusal to quash information, where bills themselves failed to show errors complained of.
    2. Fish <&wkey;(5 — Conviction for setting net sustained.
    ' In prosecution, under Vernon’s Ann. Pen. Code, Supp. 1922, art. 923q, for unlawfully setting a net to catch fish; evidence Keld to sustain conviction.
    Commissioners’ Decision.
    Appeal from Refugio County Court; J. Turner Vance, Judge.
    Willie Meyer was convicted of unlawfully setting a net to catch, fish, and he appeals.
    Affirmed;
    H. S. Bonham, of Beeville, for appellant.
    Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., of Austin, .and Nat Gentry, Jr., Asst. State’s Atty., of Tyler, for the State.
   BAKER, J.

The appellant was convicted in the county court of Refugio county of unlawfully setting a net for the purpose of catching fish, on or about the 6th day of March, 1924, in -the Aransas river, and his punishment assessed at a fine of $25.

The récord discloses that the appellant was charged by complaint and information under article 923q, Vernon’s Ann. Pen. Code, Supp. 1922, which is as follows:

“It shall be unlawful for any person * * * to set any net, in the public fresh waters of this state during the months of March and April. * * * And any person who shall * * * ‘ set any net for the purpose of catching fish in the fresh public waters of this state ♦ * * during the months of March and April, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction shall be fined in a sum of not less than twenty-five dollars, and not more than one hundred dollars.”

The appellant waived a jury and submitted his ease to the court, who, upon hearing the evidence, assessed the punishment as above -stated.

There are several bills of exceptions in the record, the greater portion of which complain of the action of the court in refusing to quash the information -herein. After a careful examination of -them, we find that tjiey are defective, and we are therefore unauthorized to consider same on account of the well-established rule, heretofore’ stated by this court in Branch’s Penal Code, § 207, pp. 131-133; that the bills- themselves must show the errors complained of. The authorities are so numerous, and the rule so well established now,-that citation of authorities are unnecessary.

The testimony of the state explicitly shows that the appellant, about the 5th day of March, 1924, was fishing in the Aransas river, and had a net set therein, as alleged in the information. The appellant failed to testify or produce any testimony in his own behalf, and there was no issue raised by him tending to contradict the testimony of the state in this particular. The court having heard the testimony and from it determined the guilt of the appellant, we find" nothing in the record which would authorize us to interfere with the action of the trial court; and the judgment is accordingly affirmed.

PER CURIAM. The foregoing opinion of the - Commission of Appeals has been/ approved by the Court of Criminal Appeals. 
      @unFor other eases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     