
    PARVIN v. STATE.
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    April 12, 1911.)
    1. Criminal Law (§ 1076*) — Appeal—Recognizance— Insufficiency.
    An appeal from a conviction will be dismissed, where the recognizance is insufficient.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2708-2716; Dec. Dig. § 1076.*]
    2. Criminal Law (§ 1144*) — Appeal—Record —Presumptions.
    Where there is neither a statement of facts nor bills of exceptions in the record, it will be presumed that the trial judge charged all the law applicable to the facts proved.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Gent. Dig. § 3032; Dec. Dig. § 1144.*]
    Appeal from District Court, Callahan County; Thomas L. Blanton, Judge.
    George Parvin was convicted of assault to mijrder, and he appeals.
    Dismissed.
    H. P. Brelsford and F. S. Bell, for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   HARPER, J.

In this case the appellant was indicted in the district court of East-land county, charged with the offense of assault to murder on J. R. Stubblefield. The venue of this offense was changed to Callahan county by the court. Upon a trial, defendant was adjudged guilty of an aggravated assault, and his punishment assessed at a fine of $250 and imprisonment in the county jail for two months.

The Assistant Attorney General moves to dismiss this cause because of insufficient recognizance, and this motion is well taken; but, should we overlook this motion, there is neither a statement of facts nor bills of exception in tbe rgeord, and, the record being in this condition, we will presume that the judge charged the law, and all the law, applicable to the facts introduced in evidence. Wright v. State, 37 Tex. Cr. R 146, 38 S. W. 1004; Jones v. State, 34 Tex. Cr. R 642, 31 S. W. 644, and authorities cited.

Motion is sustained, and cause dismissed.  