
    SMITH v. STATE.
    (No. 10286.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    June 23, 1926.
    Rehearing Denied Oct. 20, 1926.)
    1. Criminal law <©=>1182.
    Where record, is before reviewing court without any statement of'facts or bills of exception and indictment correctly charges the offense and charge is a correct presentation of the law, no error appearing, judgment will be affirmed.
    On Motion for Rehearing.
    2. Criminal law <@=>875(1).
    That jury, instead of writing out the word “assess” in verdict where they assessed punishment, merely used letters “ass.,” held not prejudicial error.
    Appeal from Criminal District Court, Tar-rant County; George E. Hosey, Judge.
    Noce Smith was convicted of burglary, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Baskett & De Lee, of Dallas, for appellant.
    Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., of Austin, and Robt. M. Lyles, Asst. State’s Atty., of Groesbeck, for the State.
   LATTIMORE, J.

Conviction in criminal district court of Tarrant county of burglary; punishment, two years and six months in the penitentiary.

The record is before us without any statement of facts or bills of exception. The indictment correctly charges the offense, and the charge of the court is a correct presentation of the law.

No error appearing, the judgment will be affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

Appellant insists that we should have sustained his motion in arrest of judgment in this case, based alone on the form of verdict. The jury, instead of writing out at length the word “assess” in that part of their verdict,where they said, “assess his punishment at confinement,” etc., merely used the letters “ass.” We think the complaint is without merit. The purpose and intention of the jury are perfectly manifest from the language used by them. The trial court properly overruled the motion in arrest of judgment.

The motion for rehearing will be overruled. 
      
       — .T?nr other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     