
    SHOPPA v. STATE.
    (No. 9453.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Nov. 11, 1925.)
    Criminal law i§=3l09l(ll) — Bill of exceptions in question and answer form, without certificate showing necessity of such form, cannot be considered1.
    Bill of exceptions in question and answer form, without a certificate of the court showing that it was necessary to prepare bills in that/ manner, cannot be eonsidered.
    Commissioners’ Decision.
    Appeal from District Coul’t, Williamson County; Cooper Sansom, Judge.
    Joe Shoppa was eonvipted of manufacturing intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Dickens & Dickens, of Austin, for appellant.
    Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., of Green-ville, and Nat Gentry, Jr., Asst. State’s Atty., of Tyler, for the State.
   BERRY, J.

The appellant was convicted in the district court of Williamson pounty for manufacturing intoxicating liquor, and his punishment assessed at one year in the penitentiary.

There are four bills contained in this record and each of them is in question and answer form, and there is no certificate of the court showing that it was'necessary to prepare these bills in this manner.

Under the unbroken line of authorities in' this state, these bills of exceptions cannot be considered. Robbins v. State, 100 Tex. Cr. R. 592, 272 S. W. 176, and cases there cited; Beard v. State, 100 Tex. Cr. R. 415, 273 S. W. 573.

The facts contained in the record are entirely sufficient to support the judgment, and, no error being manifested by the record, it is our opinion that the judgment should be in all things affirmed.

PER OURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court. 
      tgsjPor other cases see same topic ana KEY-NUMBER, in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     