<p>1. —Forgery—Transcript—Ex Parte Paper.</p> <p>A paper which is attached to the front page of the transcript, but not embodied in or made a part thereof and not certified to nor verified in any way, can not be considered on appeal. Following Carroll v. State, 24 Texas Crim. App., 313.</p> <p>2. —Same—Hegotiable Instrument—Indictment.</p> <p>Where the instrument on its face is a negotiable instrument and importing a pecuniary condition, it is not necessary for the indictment to contain any explanatory averments. Following Reeves v. State, 51 Texas Crim. Rep., 604.</p> <p>3. —Same—Evidence—Practice in District Court.</p> <p>Where the evidence was admissible on the count of the indictment whieh charged forgery, and the second count charging the passing of a forged instrument was not submitted to the jury, there was no error.</p> <p>4. —Same—Evidence—Bill of Exceptions—Variance.</p> <p>Where the bill of exceptions did not refer to the alleged variance between the instrument offered in evidence and that alleged in the indictment, the same could not be considered on appeal; besides, the statement of facts showed that there was no variance.</p> <p>5. —Same—Evidence—Entries in Books.</p> <p>Upon trial of forgery, there was no error in admitting testimony as to the entries made in an express company’s book by the direction of the witness," it being shown that the book was correctly kept; besides, these facts were testified to by the witness making the entries.</p> <p>6. —Same—Evidence—Handwriting. • '</p> <p>Upon trial of forgery, there was no error in admitting testimony showing that shipments of liquor were received by defendant who signed for same in an express company’s book, and, also, the introduction of such books.</p> <p>7. —Same—Evidence—Bill of Exceptions—Money Order.</p> <p>Where, upon trial of forgery, the record did not show on appeal that the alleged forged money order offered in evidence was not a copy of the one set out in the indictment or pointed out by the variance, there was no error.</p> <p>8. —Same—Evidence—Bill of Exceptions—Signature.</p> <p>Where defendant objected to the testimony that the alleged maker of the forged money order did not sign the same because there was a variance between the proof and the pleading, but said order was not copied in the bill of exceptions nor the variance pointed out therein, the same could not be considered on appeal.</p> <p>9. —Same—Evidence—Expert—Comparison of Handwriting.</p> <p>Where, upon trial of.forgery of an express money order, the State was permitted to introduce testimony by an expert as to comparison of handwriting between the signature on said order and the proven signature of defendant, there was no error; besides, the hill of exceptions did not point out the error as to the alleged variance between the money order introduced in evidence and that alleged in the indictment. Following Quintana v. State, 29 Texas Crim. App., 401, and other cases.</p> <p>10. —Same—Bad Writing—Spelling—Charge of Court—Variance.</p> <p>Bad writing and bad spelling will not vitiate an instrument, and where appellant did not show in his hill of exceptions in wihat the variance consisted between the words and figures used in-the instrument introduced in evidence and the one alleged in the indictment, there was no error, although the alleged instrument was badly written, hut could, nevertheless, be deciphered, and there was no error in the court’s failure to charge thereon.</p> <p>11. —Same—Charge of Court—Circumstantial Evidence.</p> <p>Where, upon trial of forgery, the court properly charged on circumstantial evidence, and that the alleged forged instrument must have been wilfully made without the knowledge and consent of the person whose name was forged, there was no error.</p> <p>12. —Same—Original Instrument—Bill of Exception.</p> <p>Where, upon rehearing in this court, the clerk of the court below certified that the money order attached to the transcript is the one introduced in evidence, the same will be considered, but as the bill of exceptions objecting to its introduction is defective, no reversible error is presented.</p>
