
    DANIEL v. STATE.
    (No. 6321.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    June 8, 1921.
    Rehearing Denied Nov. 2, 1921.)
    1. Indictment and information <&wkey;169 — Offense committed within period of limitation and before indictment may be shown.
    In a prosecution of a chiropractor for practicing medicine in violation of Pen. Code 1911, c. 6, tit. 12, proof of relevant facts showing that the offense was committed at a time within the period of limitation and anterior to the presenting of the indictment was competent.
    On Motion for Rehearing.
    2. Courts <&wkey; 106 — Appellate court need not discuss all questions raised.
    The burden is not upon the appellate court to discuss in its opinion all questions raised in the transcript and statement of facts.
    3. Criminal law <&wkey;>l090(!4) — Instructions reviewable oniy upon bills of exceptions.
    Under Vernon’s Ann. Code Cr. Proc. 1916, art. 744, in misdemeanor cases complaints of the charge and of the refusal of special charges are reviewable only upon bills of exceptions.
    4. Criminal law &wkey;>l090(8, 14) — Bills of exceptions neeessary to review.
    Except in case of fundamental error, it is essential to authorize review that rulings of the trial court and objections thereto be bx-ought up by bills of exceptions, in view of Vernon’s Ann. Code Cr. Proc. 1916, art. 744, and in misdemeanor cases this pertains to the charge as well as to the admission or exclusion of evidence.
    Appeal from Angelina County Court; John P. Robinson, Judge.
    Otto Daniel was convicted of illegally practicing medicine, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    N. D. Wright, I.. D. Fairchild, and John S. Redditt, all of Lufkin, for appellant.
    R. H." Hamilton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   MORROW, P. J.

Appellant was convicted of practicing medicine in violation of the law; punishment fixed at a fine of $50 and a jail sentence of 30 minutes.

Appellant is shown to have been a chiropractor, engaged in practicing medicine for pay in violation of the provisions of the Penal Code, c. 6, tit. 12. See Hicks v. State, 227 S. W. 302. The indictment was filed on the 10th day of December, 1920, and charged the offense to have been committed on or about the 22d day of October, 1919, and anterior to the presentment of the indictment.

Some of the acts relied upon by the state occurred subsequent to October 22,1919, but prior to the filing of the indictment. The admission of these acts were complained of upon the ground that the state should have been limited to proof of acts occurring prior to October 22d. We think the appellant’s contention is not sound. Proof of relevant facts was competent, going to show that the offense was committed at any time within the period of limitation and anterior to the presenting of the indictment. Branch’s Crim. Law, § 275; Russell v. State, 53 Tex. Cr. R. 500, 111 S. W. 658.

No other questions requiring discussion are raised.

No error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

In his motion for rehearing, appellant, through his counsel, complains of the failure of the court to review and discuss the entire record and all questions raised by the appellant in the transcript and statement of facts. Counsel is mistaken in his assuming that this was not done. We will add, however, that the burden is not upon the court to discuss all questions raised, and to do so would extend the opinions beyond reasonable limits.

In misdemeanor cases, complaints of the charge and of the refusal of the special charges are reviewable only upon bills of exceptions. See art. 739 of Vernon’s Texas Crim. Statutes, , vol. 2, p. 499, and cases cited, including Brown v. State, 73 Tex. Cr. R. 574, 166 S. W. 508, in. which will be found a collation of previous decisions.

Except in the matter of fundamental error, it is essential to authorize review that rulings of the trial court and objections thereto be brought up by bills of exceptions. Code' Cr. Proc. art. 744; Vernon’s Texas Crim. Statutes, vol. 2, p.527. In misdemeanor cases, as stated above, this pertains to the charge as well as the admission or exclusion of evidence. In the case before us, there are no bills of exceptions to the charge nor to the refusal of special charges. The only bill of exceptions in the redord is that discussed in the. original opinion, and it was not verified by the trial judge. It drew attention to a matter that the indictment and statement of facts revealed, and, while it evidenced a contention without merit, we deemed it not improper to state our reasons for so holding.

The motion is overruled.  