
    STRONG v. STATE.
    (No. 9794.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    March 17, 1926.)
    Criminal law <&wkey;>!092(ll).
    Purported exceptions to charge, not shown to have been presented before argument or before charge was read, held insufficient as bill of exceptions.
    Appeal from’ Criminal District Court No. 2, Dallas County; C. A. Pippen, Judge.
    T. W. Strong was convicted of negligent homicide, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Grady Nibloe and Grover C. Adams, both of Dallas, for appellant.
    Shelby Cox, Dist. Atty., of Dallas, Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., of Austin, and Nat Gentry, Jr., Asst. State’s Atty., of Tyler, for the State.
   LATTIMORE, J.

Conviction in criminal district court No. 2 of Dallas county of ,neg-Iigent homicide; punishment fixed at one year in the county jail.

We find in the record no hill of exceptions. There appears what is denominated the defendant's exceptions to the charge of the ■court, hut neither in any statement, a part ■of said exceptions, nor in any qualifying statement appended thereto hy the court, nor by any separate hill of exceptions, is it made to appear that said so-called exceptions were presented to the court before argument and before the charge to the jury was read by the court. A further inspection of the record makes plain the fact that the court tried to treat the accused as fairly as possible, and withdrew in an .instruction certain testimony deemed by appellant hurtful, and also gave six special charges requested.

We have carefully examined the statement of facts, and believe same shows testimony supporting the jury’s conclusion of guilt under the third count contained in the information.

Being unable to perceive any error, the judgment will be affirmed. 
      ©cmFor other cases see same topic.and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     