
    DOYLE v. STATE.
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Jan. 10, 1912.
    On Motion for Rehearing, Feb. 14, 1912.)
    1. Criminal Law (§ 1122) — Appeai^-Rec-ord — Questions Presented for Review.
    Where the record does not even show that a charge was given, the appellate court cannot consider grounds in a motion for a new trial complaining of the charge.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2940, 2943; Dec. Dig. § 1122.]
    2. Indictment and Information (§ 111)— Sufficiency — Prosec ution — Negativing Exceptions.
    In a prosecution under Acts 29th Leg. c. 97, for practicing dentistry without a license, providing that the act shall not apply to any person legally practicing dentistry at the date of its passage, it was not necessary that the information allege that accused was not legally engaged in such practice at the passage of the act.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Indictment and Information, Cent. Dig. §§ 295-298; Dec. Dig. § 111.]
    3. Criminal Law (§ 1097> — Appeal—Record— Statement of Facts.'
    Since, in Harris county, jurisdiction over misdemeanors has been conferred upon the criminal district court, in a misdemeanor prosecution in that court, the original statement of facts should be sent up with the record.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2862, 2864, 2926, 2934,2938, 2939, 2941, 2942, 2947; Dec. Dig. § 1097.]
    Appeal from Criminal District Court, Harris County; C. W. Robinson, Judge.
    J. J. Doyle was convicted of practicing dentistry without a license and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    F. Charles Hume, Jr., for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
    
      
      For other oases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep’r Indexes
    
   HARPER, J.

Appellant was prosecuted under information and complaint charging him with practicing dentistry without license so to do. He was found guilty, and his punishment assessed at a fine of $25.

There was no motion to quash the information; but in the record we find a motion in arrest of judgment, alleging the insufficiency of the information. However, from an inspection of the .information, we think it sufficiently charges an offense prohibiting the practice of dentistry without having obtained a license.

While in the record there is an order granting leave to file an amended motion for a new trial, yet we find no amended motion in the transcript. We cannot consider those grounds in the motion complaining of the charge of the court. There were no exceptions reserved to the charge, as shown by the record; in fact, the record does not disclose there was any charge given. This is a misdemeanor conviction, and the statement of facts is not copied in the record; therefore, under the decisions of this court, we cannot consider same. But, if we were to consider the statement of facts, it shows appellant applied for and was refused license by the state board; that he was practicing dentistry in the city of Houston without having obtained license, and charging fees therefor, running what is known as the New York 'Dental Parlors. The evidence supports the verdict.

Judgment affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

This ease was affirmed on a former day of this term, and appellant has filed a motion for rehearing. He insists that the court erred in holding that there was no error in refusing to sustain his motion in arrest of judgment. This prosecution was brought under chapter 97 of the Acts of the Twenty-Nipth Legislature, page 143, and in that act it is provided that the provisions of the act should not apply to any person legally engaged in the practice of dentistry at the date of the passage of the act; and appellant’s contention is the information should have contained proper averments, alleging that he was not legally engaged in the practice of dentistry in 1905, the date of the passage of the law. This question is so fully discussed in Slack v. State, 136 S. W. 1073, especially in the judgment on the motion for rehearing, and in Dankworth v. State, 136 S. W. 789, we do not deem it necessary to again discuss the question, but merely refer to the opinions in those cases.

We were in error in the original opinion in holding that the statement of facts should have been copied in the transcript. While this is a misdemeanor, yet in Harris county jurisdiction over misdemeanors has been conferred on the criminal district court and this case was tried in the district court; consequently the original statement of facts should have been sent up with the record, as was done in this case. That part of the original opinion relating to the statement of facts is withdrawn, but when we consider the statement of facts it shows that appellant was engaged in the practice of dentistry; that he applied for license to practice dentistry, and was denied license by the board.

Motion overruled.  