
    R. Goodman v. The State.
    No. 3592.
    Decided June 9, 1915.
    1. —Robbery—Indictment.
    Where, upon trial of robbery, the indictment followed approved precedent, the same was sufficient.
    
      2. —Same—Statement of Facts—Bills of Exception.
    In the absence of a statement of facts and bills of exception, the indictment being sufficient, the judgment must be affirmed.
    Appeal from the Criminal District Court of Dallas. Tried below before the Hon. W. L. Crawford, Jr.
    Appeal from a conviction of robbery; penalty, ninety-nine years imprisonment in the penitentiary.
    The opinion states the case.
    No brief on file for appellant.
    
      C. C. McDonald, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.
    Green v. State, 66 Texas Crim. Rep., 446.
   PRENDERGAST, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was convicted of . robbery with firearms and his punishment assessed at ninety-nine years in the penitentiary.

The indictment was good and followed the statute and approved form. Green v. State, 66 Texas Crim. Rep., 446, 147 S. W. Rep., 593; Bell v. State, 176 S. W. Rep., recently decided.

There is no statement of facts, nor bills of exception that can be considered in the absence of a statement of facts. The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.  