
    HOLLAND v. STATE.
    (No. 5929.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Oct. 27, 1920.)
    Criminal law <©=>l 120(1) — Complaint as to admission of evidence too indefinite for reView.
    A complaint that the court committed error in admitting statement of accused made while he was under arrest was too indefinitely presented for consideration, where the testimony was not specified nor the circumstances attending its admission stated, and record failed to disclose that accused presented a bill of exceptions to the court’s ruling in admitting the testimony.
    Appeal from Criminal District Court, Dallas County; C. A. Pippen, Judge.
    M. D. Holland was convicted of bigamy, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Alvin M. Owsley, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   DAVIDSON, P. J.

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.  