
    TURNER v. STATE.
    (No. 5311.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Feb. 19, 1919.)
    1.Husband and Wife <3=312 — Wife Desertion — Sufficiency of Complaint— ' Allegation of Mabriage.
    Complaint for wife desertion, following the language of the statute, and alleging that defendant deserted his “wife,” naming her, held not insufficient as failing to allege defendant was married.
    2. Husband and Wife <3=314 — Wife Desertion — Instructions — Explanation of Terms.
    In a prosecution for -wife desertion, the words “justification,” “destitute,” and “necessitous,” used in the statute and the charge, did not require explanation or definition by the court.
    3. Criminal Law <⅞=1097(1,4) — Appeal-Matters Reviewable — Absence of Statement of Pacts.
    In absence of statement of facts, Court of Criminal Appeals cannot consider alleged errors in rulings on evidence and in what occurred on trial.
    Appeal from Travis County Court; D. J. Pickle, Judge.
    Paul Turner was convicted of wife desertion, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    E. A. Berry, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   LATTIMORE, J.

In this ease appellant was charged in the county court of Travis county with the offense of wife desertion, upon which trial he was convicted, and his punishment fixed at a fine of $400.

The case is before us without statement of facts or bills of exception. We. have examined the complaint, and think the same is not open to the objection raised thereto by the appellant upon the ground that it did not allege that the appellant was a married man. We think the complaint follows the .language of the statute, and in alleging that the appellant deserted his “wife, Ruth May Turner,” that js sufficient allegation that he is married.

The appellant asks several special charges, the relevancy of which do not appear to this court in the absence of a statement of facts.

There were no exceptions taken to the charge of the court, or, if so, none appear in the record.

The appellant asked the court below to give the definition of some words used in tlie statute and in the charge, to wit, “justification, destitute, and necessitous.” These are words of common use, and acceptation, and we do not think require any explanation or definition.

The only other matters complained of in the motion for new trial relate to matters of evidence and what occurred on the trial of the case, and, in the absence of a statement of facts, we cannot consider same.

Complaint is made of some language used by the prosecuting attorney in his argument to the jury, but there nowhere appears in the record any bill of exception thereto or written reguest that the jury do not consider same.

There being no error apparent from the record, the judgment of the court below is affirmed. 
      <©c»For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     