
    PHLEGM v. STATE.
    (No. 8073.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Feb. 20, 1924.)
    1. Jury'<$=>80 — That only 45 of 90 veniremen were summoned would not require quashing venire.
    That only 45 of 90 veniremen were summoned would not alone require the quashing of the venire, as the sheriff’s return may have shown good reason for failure to summon more.
    2. Criminal law <$=>!144(8) — Refusal to quash venire held not error.
    Refusal to quash the venire on the ground that only 45 of 90 veniremen were summoned and only 33 responded held not error, in the absence of anything in the bill negativing the inference that a satisfactory jury .was obtained from those who appeared.
    3. Criminal law <@=>1091 (II) — Bill of exceptions in question and answer form insufficient.
    A bill of exceptions consisting wholly of questions and answers is insufficient, where no reason is given or appears for such procedure.
    4. Criminal law <$=-1091 (4)— Bill of exceptions held insufficient as not showing relevancy of evidence.
    On appeal from a conviction of murder, a bill of exceptions containing only two questions to defendant’s witness and his answers that certain men came to defendant’s house after he did, and “wanted to see about the knife,” held insufficient, as furnishing no information as to the relation of the evidence to the issue.
    5. Criminal law <@=>1091(4) — Bill of exception to admission of evidence held too meager.
    On appeal from a conviction of murder, a bill of exception to a question asked'a state’s witness as to whether anything, was said by anybody at defendant’s house about giving a knife away, to which he replied that a certain person “told him to give it to him,” held too meager to inform the court of the nature of the complaint.
    6. Criminal law <$=>1091(3) — Bill of exception to staters impeachment of its own witness held insufficient.
    A bill of exception to the state’s impeachment of its own witness, by reading from a contradictory statement signed by him before the trial, held insufficient as failing to disclose whether the rules of evidence were transgressed.
    Appeal from Criminal District Court, Harris County; C. W. Robinson, Judge.
    Sullivan Phlegm was convicted of murder, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.
   MORROW, P. J.

The offense is murder; punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for a period of 12 years.

The slaying of the deceased by the appellant is conceded. By his testimony, he justified on the ground that he acted in self-defense. The testimony of the state is sufficient to support the verdict of murder.

The first'bill of exceptions reflects the action of the court in refusing to quash the “indictment” upon the ground that a special venire of 90 persons was ordered, but that only 45 were summoned and only 33 responded. These facts seem more pertinent to' the motion to quash the venire, and it is possible that the use of the word “indictment” in the record is a clerical error. The mere fact that but 45 of the veniremen were summoned would not require the quashing of the venire. It may have been that the return of the sheriff showed good reason for the failure to summon more. Taylor v. State, 14 Tex. App. 340; Jones v. State, 85 Tex. Cr. R. 543, 214 S. W. 322. Nothing in the bill negatives the inference that a satisfactory jury was obtained from those who appeared. Therefore no injury appears. Charles v. State, 13 Tex. App. 664; Parker V. State, 33 Tex. Cr. R. 111, 21 S. W. 604, 25 S. W. 967. No error is revealed by the bill.

Bill No. 2 consists wholly of questions and answers. No reason is given or appears for this procedure; nor is the bill otherwise sufficient to inform this court of any improper ruling.

In bill No. 3 it is shown that the defendant’s witness Ivy was asked:

“Q. Who came there (to defendant’s house) next after you did? A. Frank Fulton and Jack Perkins.
“Q. What did they want? A. They wanted to see about the knife, I suppose.”

This is the entire substance of the bill, and furnishes this court with no information upon which to determine the relation of the evidence in question to the issue on trial. Eldridge v. State, 12 Tex. App. 208; Conger v. State, 63 Tex. Cr. R. 327, 140 S. W. 1112; Branch’s Ann. Tex. P. C. § 207, and cases collated.

Bill No. 4 complains that the state’s witness Taylor was asked this question:

“Was there anything said there hy anybody about giving that knife away — giving that knife to each other?” Witness replied: “He told him — Frank Fulton told him to give it to him.” Nothing further appears except that this was admitted over the appellant’s objection. The bill is too meager to comply with the rules of practice and inform this court of the nature of the complaint.

In bill No. 5 it is stated that the state was permitted to impeach the witness George Taylor by reading from a purported statement signed by him some time prior to the trial of this cause, which testimony was in contravention to that given by him upon the day of the trial and was material in convicting the appellant. To this an exception was reserved. Whether the rules of evidence are transgressed the bill fails to disclose. Even if the state improperly impeached its own witness, this court, being without information as to what transpired, is in no position to appraise the merits of the complaint.

There being no error discerned in the record, the judgment is affirmed. 
      <@3=>For other cases see same topic arid KE¥-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     