
    DAY v. STATE.
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    May 31, 1911.)
    1. Ceiminal Law (§ 1091) — Bill of Exceptions — Grounds for Exceptions — Indefiniteness.
    A bill of exceptions failing to state the grounds for the exception urged will not be considered on appeal because too indefinite.
    [Ed. Note. — Por other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2828-2833; Dec. Dig. § 1091.]
    2. Criminal Law (§ 889) — Correction of Yerdici>-Power of Court.
    Under Code Cr. Proc. 1895, arts. 753, 754. authorizing correction of verdicts under the direction of the court, the court may, on the jury finding accused guilty on all the counts of an indictment and assessing a fine for each, refuse to accept the verdict and direct the jury to retire and designate under which count a verdict of guilty is based if accused is found guilty, and accused may not complain of the action of the court where the jury returned a verdict finding him guilty of one offense and assessing his punishment in a sum less than the sum assessed on all the counts.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2109, 2110, 2112; Dec. Dig. § 889.]
    3. Criminal Law (§ 1172) — Harmless Error-Refusal to Give Instructions.
    Where accused was acquitted of an assault, the failure to direct the kind of verdict as to assault in case the jury found that accused acted in self-defense was not erroneous.
    [Ed'. Note. — Por other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 3154-3163; Dec. Dig. % 1172.]
    4. Indictment and Information. (§ 129)— Joinder of Counts.
    An indictment containing several counts charging offenses growing out of the same transaction is good as against a motion to quash because of the counts.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Indictment and Information, Cent. Dig. §§ 414-418; Dec. Dig. § 129.]
    5. Indictment and Information (§ 132) — Counts — Election.
    Where an indictment contained several counts charging offenses growing out of the same transaction, the refusal to require the state to elect on which count it would rely for a conviction was proper.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Indictment and Information, Cent. Dig. §§ 425-453; Dec. Dig. § 132.]
    6. Witnesses (§ 90) — Evidence—Codefend-ants— Competency.
    Under Code Cr. Proc. 1895, art. 771, providing that persons charged as principals cannot he introduced as witnesses for one another, a witness indicted for the offense for which accused is indicted is not competent to testify for accused.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Witnesses, Cent. Dig. •§§ 247, 248; Dec. Dig. § 90.]
    ■7. Witnesses (§ 90) — Evidence— Oodefend-ants — Competency.
    Where accused insists that a witness has been indicted for the same offense to prevent him from testifying, he must proceed in the manner prescribed by Code Cr. Proc. 1895, art. 707, to obtain the testimony of the witness.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Witnesses, Cent. Dig. §§ 247, 248; Dec. Dig. § 90.]
    8. Criminal Law (§ 875) — Verdict—Sufficiency.
    A verdict of guilty is sufficient, though a letter is left out in the spelling of the word “guilty.”
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2089, 2090; Dec. Dig. § 875.]
    9. Criminal Law (§ 1056) — Instructions— Review.
    In a misdemeanor ease, the court on appeal will not consider errors in the instructions where bills of exceptions were not reserved to the charge.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2668, 2870; Dec. Dig. § 1056.]
    Appeal from Denton County Court; Lee Zumwalt, Judge.
    Jim Day was convicted of crime, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Chas. Mays, Co. Atty., H. R. Wilson, Asst. Co. Atty., and C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
    
      
      For other eases see sAme topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep’r indexes
    
   HARPER, J.

In this case appellant was indicted by the grand jury of Denton county, the indictment containing three counts, all growing out of the same transaction.

The court submitted the case to the jury on all three counts, and the jury returned a verdict finding defendant guilty on all three counts, and assessing a fine for each violation of the law alleged. The judge refused to receive the verdict, and instructed the jury to return to their room, and instructed that they, under the indictment, could only find defendant guilty on one count in the indictment and charge, and if they found defendant guilty to designate under which count they based the verdict. Whereupon the jury retired and afterwards returned into court a verdict finding the defendant guilty of disturbing the peace, and assessing his punishment at a fine of $100, this lacking $5 of being equal to the amount they had assessed against defendant on all three counts. To all of which defendant objected and reserved a bill of exception, but in it states no ground of objection-. This court holds that where bills of exception fail to state the grounds or reasons for the exceptions urged, they are too indefinite to be considered. Sims v. State, 30 Tex. App. 605, 18 S. W. 410; Clemmons v. State, 39 Tex. Cr. R. 279, 45 S. W. 911, 73 Am. St. Rep. 923. But were we to consider the bill, there was no error in the court refusing to receive an improper verdict, and requiring them to return a verdict in accordance with the charge of the court. Roseboro v. State, 106 S. W. 134; Jones v. State, 7 Tex. App. 103; articles 753 and 754 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1895, and authorities cited under these two articles in White’s Annotated Procedure. Especially so in this case, as no injury is shown.

No error is presented in the bill of exception complaining “that the court failed to instruct the jury what kind of verdict that should he returned as to assault in case the jury found he acted in self-defense,” as he was acquitted of an assault.

There was no error in refusing to quash the indictment because of the three counts; nor in refusing to require the state to elect on which count it would rely for a conviction. Roseboro v. State, 106 S. W. 134; Hall v. State, 32 Tex. Cr. R. 474, 24 S. W. 407; Alexander v. State, 27 Tex. App. 533, 11 S. W. 628.

In bill No. 4 appellant complains of the action of the court in refusing to permit Wilson Ruth to testify in his behalf. By the bill it is shown that said witness is indicted for the same offense, and this presents no error. Article 771, Code of Criminal Procedure. Appellant in the bill insists that the witness had complaint and information presented against him for the purpose of preventing him from testifying. Article 707 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides a means whereby appellant could have proceeded, if this was the .purpose of the state.

The matters complained of by appellant in the third, tenth, eleventh, and fourteenth assignments of error cannot be considered in that no bills of exception were reserved to these matters.

The verdict of the jury is sufficient on which to base a finding and judgment even though one letter is left out in spelling the word “guilty.” Attaway v. State, 31 Tex. Cr. R. 475, 20 S. W. 925; McGee v. State, 39 Tex. Cr. R. 190, 45 S. W. 710; Garza v. State, 47 S. W. 984.

No bills of exception were reserved to the charge of the court, and in a misdemeanor case unless exceptions are reserved and presented in the record by bills we cannot consider the criticisms of the charge in the motion for a new trial.

The judgment is affirmed.  