KELLY v. STATE.
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
March 19, 1913.)
1. Cbiminal Law (§ 1090*) — Appeal—Bills oe Exception — Necessity.
The denial of a continuance in a criminal case cannot be reviewed where no bill of exceptions was reserved thereto.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2653, 2789, 2803-2822, 2825-2827, 2927, 2928, 2948, 3204; Dec. Dig. § 1090.*]
2. Cbiminal Law (§ 1097*) — Appeal— Statement oe Facts — Necessity.
A denial of a new trial in, a criminal case on the ground of newly discovered evidence cannot be reviewed in the absence of a statement of facts.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent Dig. §§ 2862, 2864, 2926, 2934, 2938, 2939, 2941, 2942, 2947; Dec. Dig. § 1097.*]
*1196Appeal from District Court, Galveston County; Robt. G. Street, Judge.
W. Kelly was convicted of theft from the person, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
DAVIDSON, P. J.
Appellant was convicted of theft from the person; his punishment being assessed at two years’ confinement in the penitentiary.
[1,2] The record is'before us without a statement of facts or bill of exceptions. The motion for new trial complains, first, that the ease ought to have been continued. There was no bill of exceptions reserved to the action of the court refusing to postpone or continue the case. Second, on account of newly discovered evidence. Without the evidence before us we are unable to intelligently revise this matter. As the record presents the appeal to this court, we find no reversible error, and the judgment is ordered to be affirmed.