¶1 Appellant was convicted of murder in tbe first degree, bis punishment being assessed at a life term in tbe penitentiary.
¶2 A bill of exceptions was not reserved to tbe court’s refusal to grant tbe application for a continuance, hence appellant’s contention in this respect will not be revised.
¶3 Nor does it constitute, in this case, ground for reversal that one of tbe witnesses in tbe case was subsequently indicted for tbe same murder of which appellant was convicted. Tbe record does not contain a statement of facts. Tbe court charged fully the law in regard to tbe testimony of accomplices, and it is not verified that tbe witness was in fact indicted, as alleged in tbe motion for a new trial. Whether indicted or not, tbe witness would have been competent to testify in tbe case in behalf of tbe State. Pitner v. The State, 23 Texas Crim. App., 366. Tbe inhibition would apply only when tbe witness is indicted for tbe same offense as tbe accused, and is offered in bis behalf. Code Crim. Proc., art. 731.
¶4 Tbe remaining questions can not be revised without tbe evidence, and that is not before us.
¶5 We find no error, and tbe judgment is affirmed.
¶6 Affirmed.