
    FISHER v. STATE.
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Nov. 5, 1913.
    Rehearing Denied Nov. 26, 1913.)
    1. Criminal Law (§ 1091) — Appeai^Bill or Exceptions — Contents.
    Defendant filed a bill of exceptions reciting, “Be it remembered,” etc., after which was incorporated a complete copy of the entire charge, followed by a recital that defendant excepted to the charge because it was on the weight of the evidence; that it was variant from the information, misstated the stock law (Pen. Code 19.11, art. 1241) under which he was prosecuted;' and that it permitted the fury to go back two years before the filing of the complaint. It then alleged that defendant requested the court to give the following charges, and purported to copy literally four special charges, and closed with the statement, “Which charges the court then and there refused to give and to which defendant in open court excepted.” Held, that the bill was too general to permit a review of any of the proceedings attempted to be excepted to.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2803, 2815, 2816, 2818, 2819, 2823, 2824, 2828-2833, 2843, 2931-2933, 2943; Dec. Dig. § 10911
    2. Animals (§ 57) — Running at Large— Stock Law.
    In a prosecution for violating the stock law, it was proper for the court to permit the jury to go back two years prior to the filing of the complaint.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Animals, Cent. Dig. § 114; Dec. Dig. § 57.]
    3. Criminal Law (§§ 1038, 1056) — Appeai>-Instructions — Evidence—Review.
    In order to raise any question in a misdemeanor case as to any claimed defect in the court’s charge, the defect must be specifically pointed out and excepted to • when the charge is given, and a bill of exceptions saved thereto, and in addition a special charge must be requested to correct the defect.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2646, 2668, 2670; Dec. Dig. §§ 1038, 1056.]
    4. Criminal Law (§§ 1056, 1091) — Appeal-Instructions — Evidence—Review.
    When a special charge is requested and refused in a misdemeanor case, it is essential to a review of the ruling that an exception be taken at the time, and the reasons for giving the request, and how and why it was necessary and proper, must be stated in the bill of exceptions.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2668, 2670, 2803, 2815, 2816, 2818, 2819, 2823, 2824, 2828-2833, 2843, 2931-2933, 2943; Dec. Dig. §§ 1056,1091.]
    5.. Criminal Law (§ 1090) — Appeal—Objections to Charge — Misdemeanor Case-Motion por New Trial.
    An objection to the court’s charge in a misdemeanor case, made in a motion for new trial, cannot be considered on appeal but can only be raised by bill of exceptions.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2653, 2789, 2803-2822, 2825-2827, 2927, 2928, 2948, 3204; Dec. Dig. § 1090.]
    Appeal from Collin. County Court; H. L. Davis, Judge.
    R. C. Fisher was convicted of violating the stock law, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    W. R. Abernathy, of McKinney, for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
    
      
      For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep'r Indexes
    
    
      
      For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep’r Indexes
    
   PRENDERGAST, P. J.

By proper complaint and information appellant was tried and convicted for violating the stock law (article 1241, P. C. 1911), and his punishment fixed at a fine of $5.

The complaint and information allege in substance that heretofore a petition in conformity with law was presented to the commissioners’ court of Collin county, Tex., praying for an election to determine whether or not hogs, sheep, and goats should be permitted to run at large in said Collin county, and said court entered its order, ordering said election, and notice thereof was given as required by law, and said election was held in conformity with the laws of the state, and it was determined by the qualified voters at said election, who were then and there freeholders, that hogs, sheep, and goats should not be permitted to run at large in said county, and due and legal return of said election was made to the county judge of said county, and he opened, tabulated, and counted said returns as required by law and thereafter issued his proclamation to that effect, which said proclamation was duly posted at the courthouse door of said county; and after the expiration of 30 days from the issuance of said proclamation, and after the stock law had been adopted in said county, and anterior to the filing of this information, appellant did on June 15, 1911, then and there unlawfully and willfully turn out, and caused to be turned out, on lands not his own or under his control, and did then and there willfully allow to trespass upon the land of another, and did then and there willfully permit to run at large, certain stock of his own and under his control, to wit, hogs. The complaint and information are clearly full and sufficient, and the court correctly overruled appellant’s motion to quash them.

The testimony is amply sufficient to sustain the conviction. There is but one bill of exceptions in the record, which is an omnibus bill, and after the style and number of the cause it is: “Be it remembered that on the trial of the above-entitled cause the court charged the jury as follows:” Then follows a complete copy of the entire charge of the court, making about two typewritten pages. Then it says the defendant excepted to said charge because the same is upon the weight of the evidence and is variant from the information and misstates the stock law and permitted the jury to go back two years before the filing of the complaint. Then further says that the defendant thereupon requested the court to give the following charges and purports to copy literally four special charges. The bill then winds up, “Which charges the court then and there refused to give and to which defendant in open court excepted.” Clearly this bill is too general, under all the decisions, to require this court to pass upon any of the proceedings attempted to be excepted to. That the charge of the court, as stated in the bill, is upon the weight of the evidence and is variant from the information and misstates the stock law points out no specific error in any of these particulars.

As to the other objection to the court’s charge that it permitted the jury to go back two years before tbe filing of the complaint, it is clearly the law to do so. As to the court’s refusal to give the four special charges, no reason whatever is given in the bill or by either of the charges themselves why they should be given.

It is the settled law of this state that, in order to raise any question in a misdemeanor case as to any claimed defect in the court’s charge, such claimed defect must be specially pointed out and excepted to at the time the charge is given, and a bill of exceptions saved thereto, and then in addition special charges must be requested to correct such claimed defective charge by the court This has been so uniformly held, and in many recent cases many of the authorities collated to this effect, we deem it unnecessary to again cite the cases.

It is also the settled law of this state, and has been many times decided recently and the cases cited, that, when a special charge is requested and refused by the court, not only an exception in misdemeanor cases must be taken to the court’s refusal to give it at the time, but the reasons for giving it and how and why it is necessary and proper should be stated in the bill. This was in no way done or attempted to be done by this bill of exceptions.

It is also the well-settled law of this state that a complaint of the court’s charge in motion for a new trial in misdemeanor cases cannot be considered; that only a question of that kind can be raised by bill of exceptions. There is nothing further in this case requiring discussion.

The judgment will be affirmed. '  