
    Walter Day v. The State.
    No. 7975.
    Decided December 19, 1923.
    Rehearing denied February 6, 1924.
    Selling Intoxicating Liquor — Sufficiency of the Evidence — Statement of Facts.
    A socalled statement of facts not agreed to by the attorneys nor approved by the trial judge cannot be considered on appeal; however, if it were considered the evidence is sufficient to support the judgment of conviction.
    Appeal from the District Court of Brazoria. Tried below before the Honorable M. S. Munson.
    Appeal from a conviction of selling intoxicating liquor,- penalty, Punishment, two years confinement in the penitentiary.
    The opinion states the case.
    
      Rucks & Enlow, for appellant.
    
      Tom Garrard and Grover C. Morris, Assistants Attorney General,, for the State.
   HAWKINS, Judge.

Conviction is for selling intoxicating liquor, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary.

There are no bills of exception in the record. The only contention made by appellant is that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction. There is upon file what purports to be a statement of facts, which was carefully examined by us before discovering that the same is not agreed to by the attorneys, neither is it approved by the trial judge. In this condition it can not be considered and the case must be treated as though no statement of facts were upon file. If the instrument on file contains the facts they appear sufficient to support the judgment.

[Rehearing denied February 6, 1924. Reporter.]

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.  