
    VERNON v. STATE.
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Dec. 23, 1913.)
    1.Criminal Law (§ 1028) — Appeal—Record —Presentation oe Error.
    In a criminal case the admission and exclusion of testimony could not be reviewed on appeal, where such matters were not presented in any way except in the motion for a new trial.
    [Ed. Note. — For other eases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2619, 2620; Dec. Dig. § 1028.']
    2.Criminal Law (§ 1111*) — Appeal—Record —Conclusiveness.
    Defendant could not complain on appeal of the failure to submit a question which the charge as copied in the record submitted.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2894-2896; Dec. Dig. 1111.]
    Appeal from District Court, Montague County; R. H. Buck, Special Judge.
    Tenny Vernon was convicted of manslaughter, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the, State.
    
      
      For other cases see_same topic and section NUMBER in Deo. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep’r Indexes
    
   HARPER, J.

Appellant was prosecuted and convicted of the offense of manslaughter, and his punishment assessed at two years’ confinement in the state penitentiary.

The first three grounds in the motion for the new trial complains of the introduction of certain testimony, and the exclusion of other testimony. As these matters are not presented in any way except in the motion for a new trial, they cannot, under the law, be reviewed by us.

The fourth, the only remaining, ground in the motion complains of the action of the court in not submitting the question to the jury of the suspension of the sentence. As the charge copied in the record does submit this question to the jury, of course under such circumstances this ground in the motion presents no error.

Affirmed.

DAVIDSON, J., absent  