
    GREEN v. STATE.
    (No. 5074.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Oct. 23, 1918.)
    1. Criminal Law <3=1091(9, 10) — Bills oe Exceptions — Instructions.
    Bills, which do not show at what time defendant’s several charges were requested, and give no reason why such charges should have been given, are not in such condition that they can be properly considered.
    2. Criminal Law <3=814(1) — Erroneous Special Charges — Refusal.
    Special charges, inapplicable to any issue in the case, were properly refused, although requested at the proper time.
    3. Criminal Law <3=1099(5) — Statement oe Facts — Authentication and Filing.
    A purported statement of evidence heard on motion for new trial, not agreed to by attorneys or approved by court, and not filed until nearly three months after court adjourned, cannot be considered on appeal.
    
      4. Criminal Law <&wkey;1144(18) — Presumption —New Trial.
    Where statement of evidence heard on motion for new trial cannot he considered, it will ho presumed that it disproved allegation of defendant’s motion; new trial having been denied.
    Appeal from District Court, Upshur County; J. R. Warren, Judge.
    Joe Green was convicted of hog theft, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Briggs & Florence, of Gilmer, for appellant. E. B. Hendricks, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PRENDERGAST, J.

Appellant was convicted of hog theft, and assessed the lowest punishment. The evidence, without question, showed that appellant stole the hog as alleged. The indictment did not charge appellant with receiving or concealing stolen property, nor did the evidence raise that question. The court in an apt charge submitted every question that was raised by the testimony.

Appellant has several bills complaining of the refusal of the court to give severa] special charges which he claimed to have requested, and one bill to one of the charges in his favor given by the court at the request of the state. Not a single one of these bills show at what time his said several charges were requested and his objections to the court’s charge were made. Neither does either of them give any reason why his charges should have been given. He simply shows that he requested a certain special charge, quoting it, and the court refused to give it. Hence neither of his bills are in such condition that they can be properly considered. But, if his bills had shown they were requested at the proper time, neither of them should have been given. They were inapplicable to any issue in the case.

In his motion for a new trial he alleged that the jury had separated, and that he was not present when his attorneys announced ready. This was denied and contested by the state. In passing on the motion for new trial on these grounds the court heard evidence and overruled the motion. There is with the statement of facts what purports to have been a statement of the evidence heard on that motion, but it is not agreed to by the attorneys nor in any way approved by the court. It was not filed until nearly three months after the court adjourned, and hence cannot be considered, and we must presume that the evidence heard by the judge disproved his allegation. Reyes v. State, 196 S. W. 533, and cases cited.

The judgment is affirmed.  