
    STARNES v. STATE.
    (No. 5470.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Oct. 22, 1919
    1. Criminal law <&wkey;1144(14)— Presumption THAT REQUESTED CHARGES WERE GIVEN.
    Where the record fails to show whether special charges requested were given or not, the legal presumption is that they were given.
    2. Criminal law &wkey;1090(¿), 1121(1) — Record INSUFFICIENT FOR REVIEW OF EVIDENCE.
    Where the evidence is not before the Court of Criminal Appeals, and there are no bills of exception, the court is unable to revise the evidence, or say that it was insufficient to support conviction.
    Appeal from Tarrant County Court; Hugh L. Small, Judge.
    Buddie Starnes was convicted of adultery, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    E. A. Berry, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   DAVIDSON, P. J.

Appellant was convicted of adultery; his punishment being assessed at a fine of $200.

The motion for new trial is based upon the alleged insufficiency of the evidence, which is set out at some length in the motion for new trial as it is purported to have occurred during the trial. The evidence, however, is not beforé us, nor are there any bills of exception. There were special charges requested, but the record fails to show whether they were given or not. In that attitude of the record, the legal presumption is they were given. In the condition of this record, we are unable to revise the evidence, or say that it was insufficient.

The judgment, therefore, will be aflirmed. 
      &wkey;>For other eases see same topic ana KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     