
    M. D. Holland v. The State.
    No. 5929.
    Decided October 27, 1920.
    Bigamy—Declarations by Defendant—Bill of Exceptions.
    Where, upon an appeal from a conviction of bigamy, appellant urged that the trial court committed error in admitting the statement of defendant made while he was under arrest. Held, in the absence of a bill of exceptions the matter cannot be reviewed and the judgment is affirmed.
    Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 2, of Dallas. Tried below before the Honorable C. A. Pippen.
    Appeal from a conviction of bigamy; penalty, three years imprisonment in the penitentiary.
    The opinion states the case.
    No brief on file for appellant.
    
      Alvin M. Owsley, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.
    Cited Walker v. State, 217 S. W. Rep., 939; Garcia v. State, 217 id., 943; Furlough v. State, 213 id., 649.
   DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was convicted of bigamy and given three years in the penitentiary.

It is urged that the court committed error in admitting the statement of appellant made while he was under arrest, which he claims was prejudicial to his rights. What this testimony was is not specified, nor are the circumstances attending its admission stated. In fact, the record fails to disclose that appellant presented a bill of exceptions to the court’s ruling in admitting, the testimony. The matter is so indefinitely presented, not being properly reserved for consideration, it presents no revisable error, and the judgment will be affirmed.

Affirmed.  