¶1Appellant was convicted of robbery by assault, and the jury assessed his punishment at five years’ confinement in the penitentiary.
¶2The state, over the objection of appellant, offered in evidence the testimony of the alleged injured party, Rufus A. Quillin, as given on the examining trial of appellant.
¶3Without such testimony, there is not sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction.
¶4We find no proof in the record to show that the witness was dead or was beyond the limits of the state, or proof of any fact under which such testimony might be reproduced under the terms of Arts. 749-750, C.C.P.
¶5In the absence of such proof, appellant was entitled to be confronted with the witnesses against him.
¶6The reproduction of such character of testimony is not permissible unless it appears that the state has brought itself within the exceptions provided in said Arts. 749-750, C.C.P. See Smith v. State, 142 Tex. Cr. R. 349, 152 S.W. 2d 751; Nixon v. State, 53 Tex. Cr. R. 325, 109 S.W. 931; 12 Tex. Jur. Sec. 217, p. 526; 18 Tex. Jur. Secs. 111-112, p. 199.
¶7*98The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
¶8Opinion approved by the court.