
    (85 Tex. Cr. R. 168)
    MEYER v. STATE.
    (No. 5359.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    April 2, 1919.)
    Criminal Law <S=»1182 — Affirmance.
    Where appeal from a conviction under Acts 35th Leg. (4th Called Sess.) c. 8, creating offense of disloyalty came up without any bills of exceptions or statement of facts in the record, and motion for new trial only questioned the sufficiency of the evidence to support verdict, and court, on examination, finds that indictment appears to follow language of statute, and that language imputed to defendant, if uttered, violated the law, the conviction would be affirmed.
    Appeal from Criminal District Court, Travis County; James R. Hamilton, Judge.
    Joe Meyer was convicted of a violation of the statute creating the offense of disloyalty, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    E. A. Berry, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the' State.
   LATTIMORE, J.

In this case appellant was charged with violation of Acts 35th Leg. 4th Called Sess. c. 8, creating the offense of disloyalty, and upon trial his punishment was fixed at two years’ confinement in the state penitentiary.

The case comes before us without any bills of exceptions or statement of facts in the record, and no question raised by the motion for new trial except the insufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict.

We have examined the indictment which appears to follow the language of the statute. The language imputed to the appellant therein is sufficient, if uttered, to constitute a violation of the law.

No error appearing in the record, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed. 
      ©spoFor other eases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     