
    KIDWELL v. STATE.
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    June 5, 1912.)
    1. CRIMINAL Law (§ 1099)—Appeal—State-ment oe Pacts—Piling.
    Where a purported statement of facts is not shown to have been filed in the trial court, nor approved by the judge thereof, it cannot be considered on appeal.
    [Ed. Note.—Por other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2866-2880; Dec. Dig. §• 1099.]
    2. Criminal Law (§§ 1064, 1129)—Appeal-Assignments oe Error.
    Assignments in a motion for a new trial that a verdict of the jury is against the law, and that the court failed to charge on the law applicable to the case, and an assignment of error that the court failed to charge on circumstantial evidence, which the evidence demanded, were too general to require consideration on appeal.
    [Ed. Note.—Por other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2676-2684, 2954-2964; Dec. Dig. §§ 1064, 1129.]
    3. Criminal Law (§ 1090)—Appeal—Bill oe Exceptions—Necessity.
    In a misdemeanor case, the only way the Court of Criminal Appeals is authorized to review complaints with reference to the charge is by specific bills of exceptions taken at the time.
    [Ed. Note.—Por other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2789, 2803-2827, 2927. 2928, 2948, 3204; Dee. Dig. § 1090.]
    Appeal from Pranklin County Court; G. E. Cowan, Judge
    Oda Kiidwell was convicted of unlawfully selling or giving intoxicating liquors to a minor, and she appeals.'
    Affirmed.
    C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
    
      
       For other oases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep’r Indexes,
    
   PRENDERGAST, J.

The appellant was indicted and convicted for unlawfully selling or giving intoxicating liquors to a minor without the written consent of his parent or guardian, and was fined $25.

The term of court at which the conviction was had adjourned May 7, 1910. There is in the record what perhaps was intended for a statement of facts; but it is not shown to have been filed in the lower court, nor in any way approved by the judge thereof. So that in neither event can it be considered for any purpose.

The only question sought to be raised is shown by the motion for new trial, which complains that “the verdict of the jury is against the law,” and “that the court failed to charge the law applicable to the case.” In addition to this, there is in the record, without stating when it was filed, what is designated as an “assignment of error” in these words: “Pirst and only error: The court failed to charge on circumstantial evidence, to which the evidence demanded a charge.” These assignments are too general to require any consideration by this court. Berg v. State, 142 S. W. 884; Ryan v. State, 142 S. W. 878, and the authorities therein cited.

Again, it is the well-established law of this state that in misdemeanor cases the only way this court is authorized to review complaints of the charge of the court, either of commission or omission, must be shown by bill of exceptions taken at the time and made full and specific. Hobbs v. State, 7 Tex. App. 118; Campbell v. State, 3 Tex. App. 33; Goode v. State, 2 Tex. App. 520; Dunbar v. State, 34 Tex. Cr. R. 596, 31 S. W. 401; Downey v. State, 33 Tex. Cr. R. 380, 26 S. W. 627; Cole v. State, 28 Tex. App. 536, 13 S. W. 859, 19 Am. St. Rep. 856; Loyd v. State, 19 Tex. App. 322; Lucio v. State, 35 Tex. Cr. R. 320, 33 S. W. 358; Martin v. State, 32 Tex. Cr. R. 442, 24 S. W. 512; Wright v. State, 60 Tex. Cr. R. 386, 131 S. W. 1070; Jenkins v. State, 60 Tex. Cr. R. 467, 132 S. W. 133; Basquez v. State, 56 Tex. Cr. R. 330, 119 S. W. 861.

The judgment is. affirmed.  