
    SPURLOCK v. STATE.
    (No. 4595.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Oct. 10, 1917.)
    Cbiminal Law &wkey;>1090(7, 8, 16) — Absence ox Bill ox Exceptions — Evidence—Review.
    Without bills of exceptions and the evidence this court is unable to review grounds for new trial which cannot be intelligently considered in the absence thereof, rulings on admission of testimony, and refusal of a continuance and the judgment will be affirmed.
    Appeal from Criminal District Court, Dallas County; C. A. Pippen, Judge.
    Ada Spurlock was convicted of keeping a bawdyhouse, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    E. B. Hendricks, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   DAVIDSON, P. J.

Appellant was convicted of keeping a bawdyhouse; her punishment being assessed at a fine of $200, and 20 days’ imprisonment in the county jail.

The record contains neither a statement of facts nor bill of exceptions. The grounds of the amended motion for new trial, in the absence of statement of facts and bills of exception, cannot be intelligently revised. There was an application for a continuance, but a bill' of exceptions was not reserved to its refusal, and, in addition, the evidence is not before us. The remaining grounds of the motion refer to rulings of the court in regard to the admission of testimony. Without bills of exception and the evidence this court is unable to revise these matters. The judgment is therefore ordered tp be affirmed.  