
    SMITH v. STATE.
    (No. 9084.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    May 20, 1925.)
    1. Criminal law <&wkey;1098 — Statement of facts in question and answer form will not be considered.
    Statement of facts on appeal in question and answer form will not be considered.
    2. Criminal law &wkey;>I092(l2) — Right of defendant, dissatisfied with court’s qualifications of bill of exceptions, stated.
    A defendant, not satisfied with qualifications placed on his bill of exceptions, may refuse to accept bill as qualified, in which event court should prepare bill with right to defendant to resort to bystander’s bill, if he is not satisfied with bill prepared by court.
    3. Constitutional law <&wkey;70(l) — Court is without power to add to or take from statutory laws which are clear, unequivocal, and constitutional.
    Court is without power to add to or take from statutory laws which are clear, unequivocal, and constitutional.
    4. Criminal law <&wkey;ll36 — Defendant, who through his own conduct is forced to trial before jury summoned by sheriff, cannot complain.
    Defendant, who through his own conduct is forced to trial before jury summoned by sheriff, rather than before regular jury for the week, cannot complain of such fact.
    Commissioners’ Decision.
    Appeal from District Court, Eamar County; It. L. Lattimore, Special Judge.
    
      Jack Smith was convicted of possessing .intoxicating liquor for purpose of sale, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    H. Grady Sturgeon and Patrick & Eubank, all of Paris, for appellant.
    Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover 0. -Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of' Austin, for the State.
   BERRY, J.

Appellant was convicted, in the district court of Lamar county, for the offense of possessing intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale, and his punishment was assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for a term of.two years.

The statement of facts in the case is in question and answer form, and same will not be considered.

Appellant has filed in this court a motion to strike from his bills of exception certain qualifications and explanations made thereto by the judge who tried the case. This motion raises issues of fact between the court’s explanation of the bills of exception and the averments of the motion. We have no way of determining these questions of fact. His remedy, where he is not satisfied with the qualification placed on his bill by the trial court, is to refuse to accept the bills as qualified, and in that event the trial court should prepare a bill of his own. If appellant is dissatisfied with the bill as thus prepared, he then has the right to resort to bystanders to prove his bill. If the trial judge insists on qualifying the bills, appellant may have his objections thereto verified, and his bill will be considered as originally prepared. Thomas v. State, 83 Tex. Cr. R. 325, 204 S. W. 999. If this does not furnish to appellant every right to which he is entitled, then his resort would be to the legislative branch of the government. This court is without power to add to or take from statutory laws that are clear, unequivocal, and constitutional.

The only bill contained in the record which we can intelligently determine is the one pertaining to the challenge of the jury panel. The order overruling this challenge states facts which make it clearly appear that the. reason the regular jury for the week was discharged and the appellant forced to trial before a jury summoned by the sheriff, was due solely to the conduct of the appellant himself. It is a well-settled principle of law that a party cannot benefit from his own wrong, and this rule is applicable in this case.

We have carefully examined the record, and regret that appellant has been deprived of his statement of facts, but we only respond to a statutory prohibition when we refuse to consider a statement of facts in question and answer form. This statute has been in force for so long in Texas as to make if seem impossible that parties would any longer fail to comply with its provisions.

Finding no error in the record, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court. 
      <@=»For other cases see same topic ana 'KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     