
    GILES v. STATE.
    (No. 3590.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    June 9, 1915.
    On Motion for Rehearing, June 25, 1915.)
    1. Indictment and Information <@^196 — Duplicity — Waivee by Eailuee to Move to Quasii.
    The contention that one count of the indictment undertook to charge two distinct offenses was waived by failure to move to quash before verdict.
    [Ed. Note. — Eor other cases, see Indictment and Information, Gent. Dig. §§ 628-635; Dec. Dig. <S&wkey;196.]
    On Motion for Rehearing.
    2. Obiminal Law &wkey;1097 — Appeal—Statement oe Facts.
    Where defendant was convicted of robbery, «. capital offense, and on appeal was entitled to a copy of the notes of the court stenographer, so that his counsel might make out a statement of facts, and the stenographer furnished a complete statement of facts in narrative form, which his counsel refused to file because he claimed that it was not correct in some particulars, there was no deprivation of a statement of facts, so as to require a reversal.
    [Ed. Note. — Eor other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2862, 2884, 2926, 2934, 2938, 2939, 2941, 2942, 2947; Dec. Dig. &wkey;1097.j
    Appeal from Criminal District Court, Dallas County; W. L. Crawford, Jr., Judge.
    . Henry Giles was convicted of robbery, and be appeals.
    Affirmed.
    C. C. McDonald, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   HARPER, J.

Appellant was convicted of robbery, and prosecutes an appeal on the sole ground that the court erred in overruling his motion to quash the indictment; he contending that in one count thereof it undertook to charge two separate and distinct offenses. This contention is not well taken. Green v. State, 147 S. W. 593.

The judgment is affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

Appellant asks this court to grant a new hearing and reverse and remand this cause, because he has been deprived of a statement of facts. As appellant was charged with a capital offense, and counsel was appointed to defend him, if the court had not required the court stenographer to furnish him with a copy of the stenographic notes, this contention would be well taken. But in this instance the stenographer made out a full and complete statement of facts in narrative form, and appellant’s counsel refused to file same, because he contends it is not correct in some particulars. The law' requires the court stenographer only to furnish a copy of his notes that appellant’s counsel may make out a statement of facts. As the stenographer went further, and certainly furnished appellant with all the information required by law to be furnished, and he could, from the data furnished, make out a statement of facts, the same as if he had only been furnished with the notes, this presents no ground for reversal.

The motion is overruled.  