
    LUCAS v. STATE.
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    May 10, 1911.)
    1. Criminal Law (§ 1036*) — Appeal—Failure to Except.
    Where no objections were taken to certain testimony during the trial of a criminal case, exceptions relating thereto will not be considered on appeal.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2639-2641; Dec. Dig. §: 1036.*]
    2. Incest (§ 14*) — Sufficiency oe Evidence,
    Evidence held to support a conviction for incest.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Incest, Cent. Dig. § 12; Dec. Dig. § 14.*]
    Appeal from District Court, Cherokee County; James I. Perkins, Judge.
    Eugene Lucas was convicted of incest, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Eugene Lucas, in pro. per. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   DAVIDSON, P. J.

Appellant was convicted of incest; his punishment being assessed at eight years’ confinement in the penitentiary.

Several bills of exception appear in the-record, but as qualified by the judge they do not present matters that can be considered. I-Iad the bills of exception been taken during tile trial, it "would have necessitated a reversal of the judgment; hut the court qualifies these hills by stating no objection was urged to the testimony during the trial. The evidence set out in the hills as having been introduced was with reference to the acts of intercourse between the parties, uncle and niece, promiscuously in other counties than in the county of the alleged venue; but inasmuch as the court qualifies the bills, by stating no exception was taken to this testimony during the trial, we do not feel justified in considering the bills. These are matters that may be waived by the accused. There seems not to have been made even a motion to exclude the testimony after its introduction.

Appellant also contends that the evidence does not justify the conviction. To this proposition we cannot accede. The girl makes out a case beyond any question. The witness Foreman testifies he saw them in the act of intercourse, and there are quite a lot of' circumstances and evidence introduced by the defendant himself through his witnesses to the effect they were together, that they left the state together, and lived together in Louisiana, and that their course of conduct was such before leaving Cherokee county as to show, or justify the jury in believing, that they were having intercourse, and in our judgment sufficiently tends to connect, support, and corroborate the accomplice, independent of the direct evidence of Foreman.

The judgment is affirmed.  