
    HUBBARD v. STATE.
    (No. 10946.)
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    June 15, 1927.
    Rehearing Denied Nov. 2, 1927.
    1. Criminal law <®=»I092(I3) — Review held unauthorized, where notation that exceptions to indictment were overruled was not authenticated.
    On appeal from conviction of barratry, where there were no bills of exception in the record, and notation that defendant’s exceptions to indictment had been overruled was not authenticated by trial judge’s signature, held, that the appellate court was not authorized to consider the matter.
    On Motion for Rehearing.
    2. Criminal law <&wkey;l08i6(l4), 1092(13)— Review held unauthorized, where no ruling on motion to quash indictment appeared in record, and notation concerning matter was not signed or authenticated.
    On appeal from conviction for barratry, where no- ruling on motion to quash indictment appeared in record, or that motion was ever called to court’s attention, and notation that defendant’s exceptions to indictment were overruled was not signed or authenticated by trial judge, held that appellate court could not take cognizance of the matter.
    Commissioners’ Decision.
    Appeal from Harris County Court at Law; Ben E. Wilson, Judge.
    O. L. Hubbard was convicted of barratry, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    E_arle Adams, Jr., of Houston, for appellant.
    Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., and Robt. M. Lyles, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.
   BETHEA, J.

The appellant was convicted of the offense of barratry, and his punishment assessed at 30 days in the county jail.

Appellant was jointly indicted with C. E. McVey, C. J. Ginn, and E. K. Yollette, but was granted a severance. A jury having been waived, trial was had in the county court at law before Hon. Ben E. Wilson.

There are in the record no bills of exception. We do find, however, “Defendant’s Exceptions to Indictment,” at the terminus of which appears the following notation: “Defendant O. L. Hubbard’s exceptions to indictment overruled.” The trial judge’s signature of authentication does-not appear in connection with this notation, and there are no exceptions bringing this matter forward for our review. We are therefore not authorized to consider same.

The questions raised in the motion to quash not relating to the substance of the indictment, and not being properly presented to this court, there remains nothing further for our consideration except the sufficiency of the evidence. We have carefully read the statement of facts, and find the evidence amply sufficient to sustain the verdict.

Finding no errors in the record, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

. PER CURIAM. 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.

The only matter-urged by appellant in his motion is that certain counts in the indictment were duplicitous, and that the trial court erred in not quashing the indictment. We find in the record a motion to quash, but no order of the court appears showing that it was acted on, or that it was ever called to the court’s attention. There does appear the notation mentioned in the original opinion, but it is not over the trial judge’s signature, and is in no other way authenticated by him. In such condition of the record this court cannot take cognizance of the matter.

Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled. 
      other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     