Decided May 12, 1909.
Burglary — Bill of Exceptions — Practice on Appeal.
Where the bill of exceptions does not state or set out the ground of objection to the evidence complained of, the same could not be considered on appeal; besides the appellant having received the minimum punishment could not have been prejudiced, the evidence otherwise sustaining the conviction.
Appeal from the Criminal District Court of Harris. Tried below before the Hon. E.R. Campbell.
Appeal from a conviction of burglary; penalty, two years confinement in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case.
C.E. A.E. Heidingsfelder, for appellant.
F.J. McCord, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.
Appellant was convicted of burglary and his punishment assessed at two years confinement in the penitentiary.
We find but one bill of exceptions in the record which complains of the introduction of an indictment in another case against another party for burglarizing a car on the same night appellant was indicted for burglarizing a car. The bill is quite long and entirely unintelligible, and no ground of objection stated in the bill such as this court can review. We can not see for what purpose the testimony was introduced. The bill in no respect complies with the rules of this court which require a pertinent presentation of the point complained of and a direct statement of the reason why it is offered. None of these requirements are complied with. Furthermore, if inadmissible, in view of the fact that appellant received the minimum punishment, we do not see how it could have prejudiced appellant since the record proves a clear case of burglary against him.
Finding no error in the record, the judgment is affirmed.