Full opinion text
HARPER, J. Appellant was indicted, charged with making an aggravated assault on a woman. He was convicted, and his punishment assessed at a fine of $50. The first ground in the motion for a new trial is that the court erred in overruling appellant’s application for a continuance. No bill of exception was reserved to the action of the court, and in an unbroken line of authorities this court has held that, unless a bill of exception was saved during the term to the overruling of the application for continuance, the matter,will not be revised on appeal. Trevino v. State, 38 Tex. Cr. R. 64, 41 S. W. 608; Kelly v. State, 36 Tex. Cr. R. 480, 38 S. W. 39; Blackshire v. State, 33 Tex. Cr. R. 160, 25 S. W. 771. Neither was there a bill of exception reserved to the refusal of the court to give a special instruction requested. This is a misdemeanor ease, and a bill of exception must be reserved, or this court will not consider it on appeal. Hoyle v. State, 137 S. W. 355, and authorities there cited. The charge submitting the offense alleged in the indictment, and no exception being reserved to any portion thereof, complaints of the charge contained in the motion for a new trial in a misdemeanor case cannot be considered by us. Bradley v. State (decided at this term of the court) 136 S. W. 446, and authorities there cited. The only ground assigned in the motion is the insufficiency of the testimony to sustain the conviction. If the jury believed the testimony of the witness Daisy Allen, the testimony authorized the conviction. The judgment is affirmed. defendant to the bank, and that the remainder was paid to the defendant. In this there was no error.