
    MASON v. STATE.
    (No. 7619.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    April 25, 1923.
    Rehearing Denied June 6, 1923.)
    1. Homicide <&wkey;3-One intentionally inflicting wound with deadly weapon guilty of an offense.
    One who intentionally inflicts a wound on another with a deadly weapon, from the effect of which death results without intervening cause, is guilty of some grade of culpable homicide.
    2. Homicide <@=»5 -Knife wound resulting' In death from loss of blood supported conviction. • ■
    Where evidence was otherwise sufficient to support a conviction, the fact that a knife wound was not of itself necessarily fatal, and that deceased died from loss of blood, which might have been prevented, if medical aid had been promptly obtained, does not affect defendant’s guilt.
    Appeal from District Court, Jefferson County; E. A. McDowell, Judge.
    Lela MasOn was convicted of manslaughter, and she appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Howth & O’Fiel, of Beaumont, H. B.-Tucker, of Port Arthur, and Lamar Hart, of Beaumont, for appellant.
    ■ R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State. “
   LATTIMORE, J.

Appellant was convicted in the district court of Jefferson county of manslaughter, and her punishment fixed at five years in the penitentiary.

The case appears to have been tried without reservation of.a single bill of exceptions. We have examined the facts. The testimony was conflicting as to who began the difficulty resulting in the death of Mattie Black from a knife wound inflicted by appellant. The jury have resolved the conflicts of testimony against appellant. Her contention that the evidence is not sufficient to support such conviction is not sound. One who intentionally inflicts a wound upon another with a deadly weapon, from the effects of which wound death results without any intervening cause, wouldibe held guilty of some grade of culpable homicide. That the wound was not of itself necessarily fatal, and a showing of the fact that deceased died from loss of blood, which might have been prevented, if medical aid had been promptly obtained, does not alter our conclusion that the evidence supports the conviction. No effort on the part of appellant is shown to procure medical aid, or in any way to prevent the consequences of the wound apparently inflicted by her with a deadly weapon and with the intent to injure.

No error appearing in the record, the judgment will be affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

The motion for rehearing presents no new questions, nor is complaint made of any oversight on the part of this court in not passing upon or comprehending the issues submitted, and decided in our former opinion. No new authorities are presented nor reason urged why our former conclusion was incorrect. The only questions raised are those already decided by us, and the only authorities cited are those which we have already reviewed.

The motion for rehearing will be overruled. 
      (®=»For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER In all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     