
    TUCKER v. STATE.
    (No. 5242.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Dec. 4, 1918.)
    Criminal Law &wkey;1090(7) — Bill oir Exception — Continuance.
    The appellate court cannot reverse an order overruling an application for a continuance on account of absence of witness, unless there was a bill of exceptions and statement of facts.
    Appeal from District Court, Red River County; Ben H. Denton, Judge.
    Neal Tucker was convicted of forgery, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    See, also, 206 S. W. 943.
    E. B. Hendricks, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   DAVIDSON, P. J.

Appellant was convicted of forgery, and allotted two years in the penitentiary.

The record is without a statement of facts. The motion for a new trial is predicated upon the action of the court overruling the application for a continuance on account of the absence of witnesses, who are therein mentioned. The application ’is not in the record, nor does the evidence adduced on the trial accompany the record. This court cannot reverse with reference to this contingency, unless there was a bill of exceptions reserved to this action, and also un-, .less there be a statement of facts, even if there had been a bill of exceptions. The matters being so presented, they cannot be' considered. This is the question presented for revision.

The judgment is affirmed.  