
    JONES v. STATE.
    (No. 3603.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    June 9, 1915.)
    1. Criminal Law &wkey;5l091 — Appeal—Necessity of Bill of Exceptions.
    That jurors had read a newspaper account of the case, made a ground of motion for new trial, should, for purpose of appeal, be verified by bill of exception.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2803, 2815, 2816, 2818, 2819, 2823, 2824, 2828-2833, 2843, 2931-2933, 2943; Dec. Dig. <&wkey;>1091.]
    2. Criminal Law <&wkey;916 — New Trial — Not Ready for Trial.
    Defendant cannot, in his motion for new trial, for the first time complain that he was not ready for trial, but should have moved for postponement or continuance.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2152-2158; Dec. Dig. <&wkey;> 916.]
    3. CRIMINAL Law <&wkey;938 — New Trial — Newly Discovered Evidence.
    Testimony of previous good character is not newly discovered, for purpose of new trial.
    [Ed. Note. — Eor other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2306-2315, 231T; Dec. Dig. <@=>988.]
    4. Criminal Law <&wkey;1091 — Appeal—Necessity oe Bill oe Exceptions.
    That remarks were made by the prosecuting attorney, and excepted to, should for appeal be shown by bill of exception; allegation of the fact in the motion for new trial not verifying it.
    [Ed. Note. — Eor other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent Dig. §§ 2803, 2815, 2816, 2818, 2819, 2823, 2824, 2828-2833, 2843, 2931-2933, 2943; Dec. Dig. &wkey;1091.]
    Appeal from District Court, Collin County; M. H. Garnett, Judge.
    J. Bennett Jones, alias J. Bennett, alias Harper, was convicted of theft, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    C. C. McDonald, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   HARPER, J.

Appellant was convicted of

theft 'of $68 in money, and his punishment assessed at three years’ confinement in the state penitentiary.

The evidence sustains the verdict, and this ground of the motion for new trial is without merit.

The fact that “several of the men who served on the jury had read a newspaper account of the case and might have been prejudiced against appellant” is- not verified in any way, there being no bill of exception in the record.

If appellant was not ready for trial, he should have moved to postpone or continue the case, and not wait until after verdict to present such question for the first time in Ms motion for new trial. Testimony of previous good character would not be newly discovered testimony.

The allegation in the motion for new trial that the prosecuting officer used certain remarks does not verify that fact If it is true that such remarks were made, and excepted to by appellant, that fact should have been shown by a proper bill of exception.

The judgment is affirmed. 
      other eases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     