
    PILGRIM v. STATE.
    (No. 5644.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Feb. 25, 1920.
    Rehearing Denied March 24, 1920.)
    1. Criminal law @=>1099(10) — Statement os’ FACTS MUST BE AUTHENTICATED.
    Statement of facts on appeal, not being authenticated by trial judge, cannot be considered.
    2. Criminal law @=>1144(%) — In absence of STATEMENT OF FACTS PRESUMPTION MUST BE OVERCOME BY BILL OF EXCEPTIONS.
    In absence of a statement of facts, presumption of correctness of the court’s ruling will prevail on appeal, unless bill of exceptions is complete to a degree that renders the harmful error apparent.
    3. Criminal law @=>1122(4) — In absence of STATEMENT OF FACTS BILL OF EXCEPTIONS TO FAILURE TO CHARGE ON ALIBI MUST SHOW EVIDENCE.
    Exceptions to failure to charge on alibi cannot avail; the bill not showing the evidence required such charge, and there being no authenticated statement of facts.
    4. Criminal law @=>1120(1) — Rulings on EVIDENCE NOT REVIEWABLE EXCEPT WHERE OBVIOUSLY INJURIOUS-IN ABSENCE OF FACTS.
    Except where evidence admitted is flagrantly irrelevant and obviously injurious, or is forbidden by statute, rulings on evidence cannot be held 'erroneous ór prejudicial, in the absence of statement of fact dr statement in bills of exceptions making plain the relation of the matters referred to in the bills.
    Appeal from District Court, Upshur County; J. R. Warren, Judge.
    Dan Pilgrim was convicted of, burglary, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    M. B. Briggs and C. E. Florence, both of Gilmer, for appellant.
    Alvin M. Owsley, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.,
   MORROW, J.

The conviction is for burglary. .The document accompanying the record denominated as statement of facts cannot be considered as such, fot the reason that the authentication by-the trial judge, which is essential, is wanting.' Wright v. State, 37 Tex. Cr. R. 3, 35 S. W. 150, 38 S. W. 811; and other: cases collated in 2 Vernon’s Texas Crim. Statutes, p. 819, .note 22. In the absence of a statement of facts, the presumption in favor of the correctness of the court’s ruling will prevail on appeal, unless the bill of exceptions is complete to a degree that renders the harmful error apparent without the statement of facts. Davis v. State, 2 Tex. App. 162; Henderson v. State, 20 Tex. App. 304; and 'other' cases collated in Branch’s Annotated Texas Penal Code, § 602.

One of appellant’s exceptions to the charge challenges its correctness in failing to charge upon alibi. The bill does not show that there was evidence making it incumbent upon the court to give such a charge, and we are in ignorance of the facts that were before him. As the matter is presented, we discern no substantial vice in the charge on principals.

In regard to the complaints of the ruling of the court upon the admission or rejection of evidence, in the absencé of a statement of facts by which the appellate court may know the relation of the matters referred to in the bills to the case, or statement in the bill making this plain, it is impossible for the court on appeal to determine that the ruling complained of was erroneous or harmful. Hobbs v. State, 28 S. W. 814; other cases listed in 2 Vernon’s Texas Crim. Statutes, noté 9, p. 814. An exception to this rule obtains in instances where the evidence admitted is flagrantly irrelevant and obviously injurious, or is such as is forbidden by statute. Peterson v. State, 70 S. W. 978; Denton v. State, 42 Tex. Cr. R. 427, 60 S. W. 670; Hare v. State, 56 Tex. Cr. R. 6, 118 S. W. 544, 133 Am. St. Rep. 950; Brown v. State, 57 Tex. Cr. R. 269, 122 S. W. 565.

In the case before us, none of the matters are brought within these exceptions. The property stolen was bacon. One bill complains of tbe admission of evidence that the floor of appellant’s buggy was greasy, and complains also of a certain conversation with him in which the appellant made explanation that he had gotten some meat from the home of his. father-in-law; and, further, that on the arrest of an accomplice the appellant offered to put up $100 if the officers would permit the accomplice to remain at the home of appellant. The qualification to the several bills upon these subjects would destroy their efficacy, even if a statement of facts were it hand. The main contention in them is that appellant was under arrest when the statements were made. The bills as prepared by appellant do not sustain this contention; it is negatived in the qualification; and there is an absence of a showing that there were not circumstances connected with it which would have rendered it admissible even though the appellant had been under arrest at the time.

Finding no errors pointed out in the record, the judgment is affirmed. 
      ©=oFor other oases se6 same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     