
    PEREZ v. STATE.
    (No. 5147.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Oct. 30, 1918.)
    1. Criminal Law &wkey;>1170(4) — Harmless Error — Exclusion of Evidence.
    Accused could not complain of the exclusion of testimony of his own witness, where later such witness was fully examined with reference to the same facts.
    2. Criminal Law <&wkey;1092(ll) — Bill oe Exceptions.
    The assignments of error in a criminal prosecution should be brought up by bills of exception, verified by the trial court or proved up by bystanders, in view of Vernon’s Sayles’-Ann. Civ. St. 1914, art. 2058, and Vernon’s Ann. Code Or. Proc. 1916, art. 744.
    Appeal from District Court, Brooks County; V. W. Taylor, Judge.
    Pedro Perez was convicted of unlawfully keeping, etc., a gaming table, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    E. B. Hendricks, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   MORROW, J.

The indictment charged violation of article 551, Vernon’s P. C., making the specific allegation that appellant “did then and there unlawfully keep and exhibit, for the purpose of gaming, a gaming table and bank.” The conviction was for a felony. The evidence shows that appellant was dealing a game called “monte,” and the prosecuting witness played at the game, while appellant was dealing, and lost money in betting. The decisions construing the statute will be found in Vernon’s Crim. Stats, vol. 1, pp. 281, 282. See Morris v. State, 57 Tex. Cr. R. 164, 121 S. W. 1112.

There is but one bill of exception, which apparently relates to the refusal of the court to permit appellant to address a question to his own witness as follows:

“I will ask you this question: If he says that Pedro Perez, Pancho Perez, and you heat him up all they wanted and to their satisfaction, is he mistaken?”

The relevancy of this question in relation to tlie ease is not made apparent by the bill. The court in his qualification says in substance that he did not sustain the objection to the testimony which would have resulted from an affirmative answer, but suggested to counsel the reframing of his question, and that counsel, acting upon this suggestion, did develop all the facts. The bill says that the answer that was expected was as follows:

“He certainly is mistaken, because I never hit or beat him at all; neither did Pedro Perez or Pancho Perez hit or beat him at all; and, if he says that, it is not true.”

It appears from the statement of fact that the witness to whom the appellant addressed the question was introduced by the defendant and examined fully with reference to the various incidents of the transaction in which the gaming took place, and that he stated his version of the facts to which the inquiry was directed.

There are three propositions, denominated “Assignments of Error,” signed by attorney for appellant, but not verified by the court. They present no matter that would require reversal, and are not presented in a manner to raise any question for review. Such matters should be brought up by bills of exceptions, verified by the trial court or proved up by bystanders. See article 2058, Vernon’s Sayles’ Ann. Civil Statutes; article 744, Vernon’s Ann. Code Cr. Proc. 1916.

We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.  