
    Templeton Burns v. The State.
    No. 10062.
    Delivered March 31, 1926.
    1. —Aggravated Assault — Variance—Between Complaint and Information— Not Shown.
    Appellant complains by bill of exception that there is a variance between the date of the offense as laid in the information and of that in the complaint. An inspection of the record discloses that the dates are the same, that is March 6th, and no variance appears.
    2. — Same—Continuance—No Diligence Shown — Properly Refused.
    Where a continuance is asked, and no legal diligence which would entitle appellant to a continuance is shown, there is no error presented in the refusal of the continuance.
    Appeal from the County Court of Grimes County. Tried below before the Hon. Ralph W. Barry, Judge.
    Appeal from a conviction for an aggravated assault, penalty a fine of $25.00.
    No brief filed for appellant.
    
      Sam D. Stinson, State’s Attorney, and Robt. M. Lyles, Assistant State’s Attorney, for the State.
   LATTIMORE, Judge.

Conviction in county court of aggravated assault; punishment fixed at a'fine of $25.00.

The record is before us without any statement of facts. There are four bills of exception, two of which seem to have been presented to the court by the accused; the other two, however, are filed by the court in lieu and instead of these two. Bill No. 1 complains of the refusal of the court to quash the information upon the ground of a variance of the date of the offense as laid therein from the date of same in the complaint. Examination of said information shows that the date is laid as March 6th, and the complaint presents the same date. The bill shows no error.

Appellant sought a continuance, the refusal of which is complained of in bill of exceptions No. 2, but as shown by the bill prepared by the court it is plain that no error was committed, diligence not appearing in the matter.

No error appearing in the record, the judgment will be affirmed.

Affirmed.

Morrow, P. J., absent.  