
    PAHLKA v. STATE.
    (No. 8965.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    April 29, 1925.)
    Criminal law &wkey;>i09l(2) — Bill of exceptions containing no statement that facts stated as objections are correct does not present objections for review.
    Bill of exceptions, merely stating that certain matters are objected to, setting forth objections but containing no statement that facts thus stated as objections are correct, is insufficient to present objections for review.
    i&wkey;For other oases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digest's and Indexes
    Appeal from District Court, Caldwell County; George Calhoun, Special Judge.
    E. D. Pahlka was convicted of keeping his premises for the purpose of manufacturing and storing intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.
   LATTIMORE, J.

Appellant was convicted in the district court of Caldwell county of keeping his premises for the purpose of manufacturing and storing intoxicating liquor, and his punishment fixed at two years in the penitentiary. ,

The record is before us without any statement of facts. There is filed in question and answer form what purports to be a transcript of the evidence, but we cannot consider same. A number of appellant’s bills of exception are in such-form as that we cannot consider them. A bill which merely states that certain matters were objected to, setting forth the objections but containing no statement that the facts thus stated as objections are correct or true, is not in form to bring before us for review the matter thus complained of. This fact has been stated so often that authorities need not be cited.

Bill of exceptions No. 3 states at length a matter as being objected to, but, under the qualification of the learned trial judge, it appears that no exception was in fact- taken. It is set out in the qualification that witness made rather a lengthy statement, at the close of which appellant said, “We want this evidence withdrawn from the jury,”'etc. Thereupon the court instructed the jury not to consider certain parts of said statement which he deemed objectionable, and this appeared to be satisfactory, as no further exception is revealed by the bill.

The next bill of exceptions sets out a matter to which it is stated an objection was made, whereupon the court instructed the jury not to consider certain parts of it, and appellant then stated that he would renew the objection made by him to the refusal of the court to withdraw the jury. We find no statement of any reason why the jury should be withdrawn, or any request appearing that they should be withdrawn.

After the state closed its testimony, appellant asked a continuance, which was refused. When the motion for new trial, based in part on the refusal of the continuance, was presented, the state controverted the matters set up in the application for continuance, and presented an affidavit from the witness for whom the continuance was asked, in which affidavit the witness swore that he would not state the matters set up as expected from him. The refusal of the continuance and the motion for new trial were both proper. We have not discussed at length those bills of exception which but present the objections, without stating the facts supporting same.

Finding no error in the record, the judgment will be affirmed.  