
    BURNS v. STATE.
    (No. 10417.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Dec. 8, 1926.)
    1. Criminal law &wkey;> 1099 (Í0) — Statement of facts, signed by attorneys, but not approved by trial judge, cannot be considered.
    Statement of facts, signed by’ attorneys, but not approved by trial judge, cannot be considered on appeal.
    2. Criminal law <$=^t 122(4) — Refusal of requested special charge, depending on. evidence, cannot he reviewed, where statement of facts cannot be considered.
    Refusal of requested special charge cannot be reviewed, where it depended on evidence developed on trial, and appellate court was unauthorized to' consider statement of facts.
    3. Criminal law <&wkey;l09l (II)— Bill of exception, challenging validity of search' warrant, held defective.
    Bill of exception, charging defective search warrant, held defective, where warrant was not incorporated in bill, and none of matters on which claimed defects were based were certified by judge as in fact existing.
    4. Criminal law &wkey;*l 119(|)— Refusal to ' instruct verdict of not guilty cannot be reviewed, where evidence was not before appellate court.'
    Propriety of court’s refusal to instruct verdict of not guilty cannot be reviewed, where evidence claimed' to be insufficient to convict was not incorporated in bill of exception, and no valid statement of facts was before court.
    Appeal from District Court, Potter County; Henry S. Bishop, Judge.
    G. R. Burns was convicted of possessing intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Will S. Payne, of Vega, for appellant.
    Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., of Austin, and Robt. M. Lyles, Asst. State’s Atty., of Groesbeck, for the State.
   HAWKINS, J.

Appeal is from conviction for possessing intoxicating' liquor for the purpose of sale; the punishment being one year in the penitentiary.

We find in the record what' purports to be a statement of facts. It is signed by the attorneys, but is not approved by the trial judge.. It cannot be considered. For authorities, see Vernon’s 1925 Ann. C. C. P. art. 760, note 24.

A requested special charge was refused, and exception reserved. The propriety, or otherwise, of the requested instruction depends on the evidence developed on the trial, and, not being authorized to consider the facts before us, we are not in a position to review the action of the court in the premises.

The only bill of exception found in the record complains of the court’s refusal to instruct a verdict of not guilty; tbe reasons stated being that the state had failed to produce any incriminating evidence against appellant, and that such evidence as had been introduced was obtained by virtue of an illegal and defective search warrant. Various reasons are stated why the search .warrant was claimed to be defective, but the warrant is not incorporated in the bill, and none of the matters upon which the claimed defects .are based is ‘certified by the judge as in fact existing, but are only the grounds of objection The authorities holding such a bill defective are numerous. Many are collated in Vernon’s 1925 Ann. C. C. P. art. 667, note 23. Neither is there’ incorporated in the bill the evidence claimed to be insufficient, and, havr ing no statement of facts before us which we are authorized to consider, we cannot appraise such complaint.

The record now before us demands an af-firmance; and it is so ordered.  