
    WHITELY et al. v. STATE.
    (No. 6518.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Nov. 30, 1921.)
    1. Criminal law @=31144(7) — In absence of bill of exceptions, presumed that refusal of continuance was proper.
    Where no bill of exceptions .was taken to a refusal of a continuance, it will be inferred on appeal that the court’s refusal was acceptable to defendants, and that no error could be claimed.
    2. Criminal law @=31090(8) — Errors in reception of evidence not considered, in absence of bills of exceptions.
    Errors in the reception of evidence com- , plained of in defendants’ motion for new trial j cannot be considered on appeal, in the absence of bills of exceptions.
    Appeal from District Court, Sterling County; C. E. Dubois, Judge.
    Carrol and Joel Whitely were convicted of ITiirglary, and appeal.
    Affirmed.
    Anderson & Upton, of San Angelo, for appellants.
    R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   LATTIMORE, J.

Appellants were convicted in the district court of Sterling county of burglary, and their punishment fixed at twp years in the penitentiary.

When the case was called for trial a continuance was sought by appellants. To its refusal no bill of exceptions was taken. In'this condition of the record we can only infer that the court’s refusal was acceptable to appellants, and that no error could be claimed. Yernon’s C. C. P. p. 529, for collation of authorities.

The record is barren of exceptions to the-charge of the court or anything else. One special charge was asked, which was given. The motion for new trial complains of errors, in the reception of evidence, but, in the absence of bills of exceptions presenting such matters, we cannot consider the complaints. No question is raised as to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict, and a discussion of the facts is omitted.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.  