
    OVERLEY v. STATE.
    (No. 10075.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    May 5, 1926.
    Rehearing Denied June 23, 1926.)
    1. Criminal law &wkey;>l035(5).
    Where accused made no objection to jurors, that a number of them had sat on same day in a similar case wherein another was convicted of a similar offense shows no error.
    2. Criminal law <®=l 120(3).
    Bill of exceptions to sustaining objection to question asked of state witness, not showing what answer of witness would have been, presents nothing for review.
    3. Criminal law &wkey;>109l(ll).
    Bill of exceptions in question and answer form is improper and will not be considered.
    Appeal from District Court, Grayson County ; Silas Hare, Judge.
    Nellie Overley was convicted of selling intoxicating liquor, and she appeals.
    Affirmed.
    J. P. Cox, of Sherman, for appellant.
    Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., of Austin, and Robt. M. Lyles, Asst. State’s Atty., of Groesbeek, for the State.
   LATTIMORE, J.

Conviction in the district court of Grayson county of selling intoxicating liquor; punishment fixed at two years in the penitentiary.

Three bills of exception appear in the record. The first complains of the fact that a number of jurors who sat on the trial of this case had sat in a similar case wherein Juanita Overley was charged with an offense of the same character, which was tried on the day of the instant- trial. The bill of exceptions is qualified by the learned trial judge, who states that there was no objection or suggestion on the part of this appellant that she was not satisfied to try her case before the jurors mentioned. No motion was made to set them aside, or to disqualify them in any way. The bill of exceptions presents no error.

The second bill of exceptions presents appellant’s complaint of a question asked of the principal state witness, by counsel for appellant. The bill shows that the court sustained the objection. It is not shown what the answer of the witness would have been to the question had he been permitted to answer. This bill presents nothing for our review.

The remaining bill of exceptions covers two pages and is in question and answer form, which has been uniformly held to be improper.

The evidence supports the conclusion of the jury.

The judgment will be affirmed,  