
    Sid Murphree v. The State.
    No. 11222.
    Delivered November 30, 1927.
    Rehearing denied January 4, 1928.
    1. —Theft of Automobile — No Statement of Facts Nor Bill of Exception.
    This record being without either a statement of facts or bill of exception, the court’s charge correctly presenting the law, must be affirmed.
    ON REHEARING.
    2. —Same—Continuance—Refusal Of — Not Properly Presented.
    The refusal of a continuance will not be reviewed on appeal unless a bill of exception complaining of such refusal is brought before this court. In the absence of such a bill appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.
    Appeal from the District Court of Eastland County. Tried below before the Hon. George L. Davenport, Judge.
    Appeal from a conviction for theft of an automobile, penalty five years in the penitentiary.
    The opinion states the case.
    
      Chastain & Judkins, for appellant.
    A. A. Dawson, State’s Attorney, for the State.
   LATTIMORE, Judge.

Conviction for theft of an automobile, punishment five years in the penitentiary.

The record appears here without any statement of facts or bills of exception. The indictment correctly charges the offense, and is followed by the charge of the court.

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

Affirmed.

ON MOTION- FOR REHEARING.

LATTIMORE, Judge.

Appellant complains in his motion of the fact that he made an application for continuance, which was refused by the court below, and that we failed to take note of same in our former opinion. We do not find in the record a bill of exceptions complaining of such refusal. In the absence of such bill the action of the trial court in declining to continue the case cannot be brought before us for review.

The motion for rehearing will be overruled.

Overruled.  