Horace Kitchens v. State
203 S.W. 768
Tex. Crim. App.
1918
Check Treatment

Appellant was convicted of robbery and assessed the lowest punishment.

The statement of facts is wholly in question and answer form. The State has made a motion to strike it out and not consider it. Under the statutes and the many and uniform decisions of this court the State's motion must be granted. A great number of cases down to the present time could be cited but we deem it unnecessary. We here cite some of them: Hargrave v. State,53 Tex. Crim. 147; Essary v. State, 53 Tex.Crim. Rep.; Baird v. State, 51 Tex.Crim. Rep.; *Page 325 Brown v. State, 57 Tex.Crim. Rep.; King v. State,57 Tex. Crim. 363; Kempner v. State, 57 Tex.Crim. Rep.; Felder v. State, 59 Tex.Crim. Rep.; Choate v. State,59 Tex. Crim. 266; Hart v. State, 67 Tex.Crim. Rep.; Criner v. State, 71 Tex.Crim. Rep.; Stephens v. State,77 Tex. Crim. 30.

Appellant made a motion for a continuance and he has some very defective and incomplete bills to the admission of certain testimony. None of these matters can be considered in the absence of a statement of facts as has all the time been held by this court in a great number of decisions.

Hence, the judgment must be affirmed.

Affirmed.