
    JONES v. STATE.
    (No. 11357.)
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    March 7, 1928.
    Rehearing Denied June 28, 1928.
    1. Forgery <@=27 — Indictment for forgery of land title need not specifically allege intent to defraud (Pen. Code 1925, art. 1606).
    Indictment under Pen. Code 1925, art. 1006, for forgery of land title, need not specifically allege intent to defraud.
    2. Criminal law <@=1086(14) — Bills of exception complaining of charge held without merit, where record showed absence of written objections to charge (Code Cr. Proc. 1925, art. 6,58).
    Bills of exception criticizing portions of charge held not to present error, where record disclosed that no written objections to charge were presented to court, as required by Code Cr. Proc. 1925, art. 658.
    3. Criminal law <@=982 — On application for suspended sentence, cross-examination of defendant’s character witness as to other transactions by defendant held not error (Pen. Code 1925, art. 1006).
    In prosecution under Pen. Code 1925, art. 1006, for forgery of land title, where defendant applied for a suspended sentence and placed character witness on stand, cross-examination of such witness as to whether he had heard of certain other transactions of defendant held not error.
    4. Criminal law <@=1091 (I I) — Bills of exception in question and answer form without certificate of judge showing necessity therefor ' are not entitled to consideration.
    Bills of exception in question and answer form without certificate of judge showing necessity for such form are not entitled to consideration.
    5. Criminal law <@=l 144(½)— Ruling- of- trial court is presumed correct, unless bill of exception shows otherwise.
    The legal presumption is that the ruling of the trial court was correct, unless bill of exception shows otherwise.
    6. Criminal law <§=1091 (2) — Bill of exception should disclose all that Is necessary to manifest the supposed error.
    Bill of exception should be made so full and complete in statement that, in and of itself, it will disclose all that is necessary to manifest the supposed error.
    
      On Motion for Rehearing.
    7. Criminal law €=>1159(5)—Conclusions of jury from conflicting opinions as to handwriting are binding on appeal.
    Conclusions of jury from conflicting opinions as to handwriting are binding on appellate court.
    Commissioners’ Decision.
    Appeal from District Court, Navarro County; Hawkins Scarborough, Judge.
    Jeff Jones was convicted of forgery of land title, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Davis, Jester & Tarver, of Corsicana, for appellant.
    . A. A. Dawson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.
   CHRISTIAN, J.

The offense is forgery of a land title as denounced by article 1006, P. C.; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for 10 years.

This is the second appeal of this case; the former appeal being reported in 106 Tex. Cr. R. 236, 291 S. W. 1105.

It was alleged in the indictment that, appellant committed the act therein charged with the intent to injure and defraud. In a motion in arrest of judgment appellant averred that the indictment was fatally defective in failing to allege the intent to defraud in a definite and specific manner. Appellant’s contention has been decided adversely by this court. It follows that the overruling of his motion in arrest of judgment was proper. Jones v. State, 106 Tex. Cr. R. 236, 291 S. W. 1105; Decherd v. State, 104 Tex. Cr. R. 105, 283 S. W. 168.

Bills of exception Nos. 5 to 8, inclusive, criticize portions of the charge. The record discloses that no written objections to the charge were presented to the court, as required by article 658, C. C. P. The questions presented are not subject to review. Wright v. State, 100 Tex. Cr. R. 291, 272 S. W. 787.

Bill of exception No. 23, as qualified by the court, presents the following occurrence: Appellant filed an application for a suspended sentence and placed in issue his general reputation for being a peaceable and law-abiding citizen. One of appellant’s witnesses testified on direct examination that appellant’s general reputation in the respect mentioned was good. On cross-examination, the witness was asked if he had heard of defendant having transactions with a woman named Carroll relating to land and having to deed the property back to her. Further, he was asked if he had heard about defendant being indicted for swindling Roy Storm. Again, he was asked if he had heard about defendant being indicted in Guadalupe county, Tex., and also as to fraudulent transactions had with one John Donely. Appellant objected to the questions generally without stating his ground of objection. The court overruled the objection. The bill recites that the witness was allowed to answer the questions, but does not show what answers were made.

We quote from Townsley v. State, 103 Tex. Cr. R. 508, 281 S. W. 1054, as follows :

“A witness to the good character of accused may be asked upon cross-examination whether he had heard rumors of particular and specific charges or acts of accused inconsistent with the character he was called to prove, not to establish the truth of such charges, but to test his credibility 'and enable the jury to weigh his evidence.”

Several of appellant’s bills of exception are in question and answer form, with no certificate of the judge showing the necessity for such form. Bills of exception in question and answer form are not entitled to consideration. Montez v. State, 101 Tex. Cr. R. 582, 276 S. W. 709; Robbins v. State, 100 Tex. Cr. R. 592, 272 S. W. 175; Romez v. State, 93 Tex. Cr. R. 92, 245 S. W. 914; Jetty v. State, 90 Tex. Cr. R. 346, 235 S. W. 589; Rylee v. State, 90 Tex. Cr. R. 482, 236 S. W. 744; Huey v. State, 90 Tex. Cr. R. 400, 235 S. W. 887. Where a bill of exception appears in question and answer form, in order to receive consideration the certificate of the trial judge must show the necessity for such form. Lee v. State, 100 Tex. Cr. R. 664, 274 S. W. 582.

Other bills of exception are insufficient, in that the facts bearing on the question attempted to be presented are too meagerly set forth to enable this court to determine whether the matters presented constitute error. The legal presumption is that the ruling of the trial court was correct, unless the bill of exception show's otherwise. Buchanan v. State, 107 Tex. Cr. R. 559, 298 S. W. 569; Branch’s Annotated Penal Code, § 207, p. 132. A bill of exception should be made so full and complete in its statements as that, in and of itself, it will disclose all that is necessary to manifest the supposed error. Buchanan v. State, supra. Branch’s Annotated Penal Code, § 207, p. 131.

The evidence is. sufficient to support the verdict and the judgment rendered thereon.

Finding no error, the judgment is affirmed.

PER CURIAM. The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals, and approved by the court.

On Motion for Rehearing.

DATTIMORB, J.

There seems no question but that some one forged the names of Alex and Dicie Haley to a deed. All the evidence for the state pointed to appellant as the guilty party. The alleged forged deed purported to convey land belonging to said parties to one F. L. Peyton, Jr., which deed was filed for record in August, 1924. Before same was recorded Peyton and wife had conveyed the land to appellant. The case was submitted upon a charge on circumstantial evidence. We have again reviewed the testimony as carefully as possible and are unable to agree with appellant that same is insufficient to support the verdict of the jury. Mere differences of opinion as to the handwriting of the alleged forged instrument, constitute facts for reconciliation by the jury, and, when decided by them, their conclusions are binding upon us.

The motion for rehearing will be overruled. 
      other eases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     
      (@=vFor other ¿ases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     