before he was indicted. The indictment was returned March 6, 1914. He had no subpoena issued for said witness until May 7, 1914, which he says was returned by the sheriff on May 28, 1914, not executed as to said witness. The trial occurred, and he made his motion to continue on June 4th following, seven days after the process was returned unexecuted. He had no other process issued for the witness, and certainly seven days was ample time to have secured his attendance, even if he was temporarily out of the city, if appellant had used any diligence whatever to have secured him. Appellant used no diligence to procure the attendance of his witness, and the court did not err in overruling his motion, nor in refusing a new trial because thereof. C. C. P., art. 608, subdivision 6; Mitchell v. State, 36 Texas Crim. Rep., 278 and 307; Buie v. State, 1 Texas Crim. App., 452; Barrett v. State, 18 Texas Crim. App., 64; Walker v. State, 13 Texas Crim. App., 618; Giles v. State, 66 Texas Crim. Rep., 638, 148 S. W. Rep., 317 et seq., and cases there cited.

Appellant, in another bill, after reciting the style and number of the cause, the court and be it remembered, etc., says: "That on the trial his counsel offered in evidence the subpoena for the absent witness, Dan Sasser, for the purpose of showing that he had tried to get the witness Sasser into court, to which the State objected, and the court sustained the objection. That said proceeding would have shown that it was issued on May 17, 1914." This is, in substance, the full text of the bill. It shows no error.

It is unnecessary to recite the evidence. It is clearly sufficient and ample to sustain the verdict of the jury. The court gave a full and complete charge submitting every issue in appellant's favor in the most. favorable light for him. There was no complaint before the trial to the charge of the court in any particular. There is nothing else raised. that is necessary to state or discuss.

The judgment is affirmed.

[Rehearing denied November 25, 1914.-Reporter.]

Affirmed.

BONDY FRANCIS V. THE STATE.

No. 3264. Decided October 28, 1914.

Rehearing denied November 25, 1914.

1.-Murder-Charge of Court-Murder in First Degree.

Fol

Where defendant was found guilty of murder in the second degree, a complaint to the charge on murder in the first degree need not be considered. lowing Potts v. State, 56 Texas Crim. Rep., 39.

2.-Same-Negligence and Gross Mistreatment.

Where, upon trial of murder, the evidence did not raise the issue whether deceased's death was caused by negligence and gross mistreatment after he was shot, there was no error in the court's failure to charge thereon.

3.-Same-Assault to Murder-Aggravated Assault-Charge of Court

Manslaughter.

Where the issues of slaughter were not raised failure to charge thereon.

assault to murder, aggravated assault and manby the evidence, there was no error in the court's Following Johnson v. State, 167 S. W. Rep., 733.

4. Same Supplemental Motion for New Trial-Practice on Appeal. Where defendant's motion for new trial was overruled and he gave notice of appeal, and after court adjourned for the term, filed a so-called supplemental motion for new trial, the same could not be considered by the lower court or by this court. Following Tores v. State, 166 S. W. Rep., 523.

5.-Same-Evidence-Res Gestae.

Where, upon trial of murder, the declarations of deceased were admitted to the effect that he wanted to see his poor little children, that he was shot by the defendant, and the defendant objected in a general way to this testimony, part of which was admissible and another part was not, there was no reversible error. Following Ortiz v. State, 68 Texas Crim. Rep., 524.

6.-Same-Evidence-Dying Declarations.

Where the alleged dying declarations were admitted upon a proper predicate, there was no reversible error.

7.-Same-Conversation-Cross-examination-Ill-Will.

Where, upon trial of murder, part of the conversation was admitted in evidence, there was no error on cross-examination by the State in permitting it to bring out the remainder of the statement made by the deceased to the witness; besides, the same showed ill-will by the defendant towards the deceased.

8.-Same-Evidence-Dying Declarations.

Where part of the statement of the wife of the deceased was simply introductory and led up to the main dying declaration of the deceased, which was admissible in evidence, and defendant was found guilty of the lowest offense on the charge of murder and his punishment assessed at the lowest penalty fixed by law, there was no reversible error.

9.-Same-Evidence-Written Statement by Deceased.

Where, upon trial of murder, the evidence showed that it was a fair inference from the facts in evidence that when the written statement of the deceased admitted as his dying declarations was made, the required conditions existed, there was no error.

10.-Same-Evidence-Irrelevant Matter.

Where, upon trial of murder, the court ruled out testimony that deceased did not have very much regard and consideration for defendant, etc., there was no reversible error.

Appeal from the District Court of Guadalupe. Tried below before the Hon. M. Kennon.

Appeal from a conviction of murder in the second degree under old law; penalty, five years imprisonment in the penitentiary.

The opinion states the case.

Greenwood & Short, for appellant.-On question of cause of death and maltreatment: Morgan v. State, 16 Texas Crim. App., 593.

On question of dying declarations: Drake v. State, 25 Texas Crim. App., 293; Irby v. State, 25 id., 203; Miller v. State, 27 id., 63; Snell

v. State, 29 id., 236; White v. State, 30 id., 652; Ex parte Meyers, 26 S. W. Rep., 196.

On question of admitting written statement of deceased as dying declaration Drake v. State, 25 Texas Crim. App., 293.

:

C. E. Lane, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

PRENDERGAST, PRESIDING JUDGE.-Appellant was indicted for the murder of his brother-in-law, Sam Cunningham, alleged to have occurred June 19, 1913, before the new murder statute, doing away with the degrees, went into effect. He was tried under the old law and the court submitted both degrees of murder. The jury found him guilty of murder in the second degree and assessed his punishment at five years in the penitentiary,-the lowest prescribed by law.

No extended statement of the evidence is necessary. The evidence, in brief, established that appellant married deceased's sister. Deceased's home was in San Antonio and appellant's in Guadalupe County at the time of the killing; that prior to the killing there had been trouble between appellant and deceased sufficient, at least, to show ill-will by appellant towards deceased. A few days before the killing deceased went from his home and was staying at a friend's, a few miles from appellant's, for a few days. On June 19, appellant had a dinner and celebration at his house. Deceased, it seems, attended this, probably without an invitation. As is customary by negroes on such occasions they had intoxicating liquors to drink and it seems all of them partook, more or less. After the dinner trouble again arose between appellant and deceased, and it seems it was about the old scores between them. Deceased thereupon left appellant's to go to another picnic or celebration in the neighborhood, or the friend's where he had been staying, a few miles distant. He was walking, and in his shirt-sleeves. When the row started between them at appellant's house, friends separated them, some taking deceased out in the yard, others taking appellant into his house. It was then deceased left. Appellant, after remaining in his house for a while, privately got his six-shooter, which was loaded, stuck it in his clothes so as to conceal it, went out to his lot, got the horse of another, mounted it and claimed to those present that he was going to a certain pasture to get another horse. He says he so told the parties in order to throw them off of their guard so that they would not prevent him from going to see deceased, which was his intention and which he at once did. He says he went to see him to try to compromise the matter between them. Appellant, on his horse, followed deceased and overtook him in the road not a great ways from appellant's home. Appellant claims that when he overtook him he told deceased he wanted to compromise their troubles and settle the matter; that deceased declined this and instead said he was going to kill him, got out his small pocketknife, started towards him with it open, and when he got within about three steps from him, he shot him with his pistol, in self-defense, deceased falling; that he then turned and left the

scene on his horse. By a dying declaration deceased said that when appellant overtook him, appellant told him that he was going to kill him unless he took back what he had said; that he declined to retract and thereupon, without his doing anything towards appellant, appellant shot him, from which wound he died within two days; that deceased was wholly unarmed, and, as he expressed it, did not even have a pin with which to stick appellant. The doctor who attended him swore that deceased was shot through the back of the flesh of the left arm about midway between the elbow and shoulder; that the ball entered. the side of the deceased, passed through his ribs, liver, lungs, and intestines, and the ball lodged near the right hip or in it; that the wound was necessarily fatal.

Appellant complains that the court erred in submitting murder in the first degree, claiming the evidence did not raise that issue. The jury found appellant guilty of murder in the second degree, assessing the lowest penalty. This presents no error as has all the time been held. Potts v. State, 56 Texas Crim. Rep., 39.

He also claims that the court should have submitted to the jury whether deceased's death was caused by negligence and gross mistreatment, after he was shot, and he asked charges on that subject. The court correctly held that the evidence did not raise the issue to require the submission of such an issue.

The evidence shows without contradiction, that when appellant shot him down he rode away without giving or offering any assistance. That very soon deceased met two friends in a conveyance, and asked them to get a doctor. One at once went for a doctor; the other put him in the conveyance and took him to his nearest friend. The one who went for a doctor said there was none at one town, and one was absent from the other town some six miles distant, and the other refused to go. This was late in the evening. That night they took him to the train some six miles to take him to San Antonio, which they did next day, and called a doctor when they got there. The doctor swore the shot was necessarily fatal.

He further excepted to the charge, claiming that the court ought to have submitted the issue of an assault with intent to murder, claiming the evidence raised that issue. Deceased was killed,-not merely shot from which he recovered, so that the issue of an assault with intent to murder did not arise and in no event should have been submitted. He also claimed that the court should have submitted aggravated assault. No such issue was raised by the evidence and the court should not have submitted it. Appellant's defense was self-defense, which was fully and completely submitted in his favor by the court and found against him by the jury, to which there is no complaint.

He also complained that the court should have submitted manslaughter. In our opinion the evidence did not raise manslaughter and the court should not, as he did not, submit that issue. There was no adequate cause. Johnson v. State, 74 Texas Crim. Rep., 179, 167 S. W. Rep., 736, and cases cited.

The term of court at which this case was tried adjourned on May 21, 1914. Several days afterward appellant filed what he calls his supplemental motion for a new trial, in which he sought a new trial for claimed newly discovered evidence. The court had no power or authority to consider it for any purpose and neither has this court. It should not have been contained in the record. During the term, at which the motion filed and acted upon during term time was overruled, appellant gave notice of appeal, which was properly entered of record. After the court adjourned for the term it was without power or authority to hear any other motion for new trial and make any order. If such order had been made, granting such motion, it would have been void. Tores v. State, 74 Texas Crim. Rep., 37, 166 S. W. Rep., 523.

Appellant complains by a bill that "the witness Robert Jefferson testified that he met the deceased walking down the road and that the said Cunningham said to him: 'I want to see my poor little children, I am shot.' He said that Bondy shot him." Then the bill shows that he objected to this testimony for various reasons. The court does not approve any of appellant's objections as statements of facts, but in allowing the bill he says he did so "with this statement: The testimony was admitted as res gestae." By his bill appellant objected to the introduction of the whole of the testimony of the witness quoted above. If he had objected to this much of the statement only, "I want to see my poor little children," it would have been proper for the court to have excluded that much of it, but all of the other which was objected to, being res gestae, was clearly admissible. When part of the testimony is admissible and another part is not, and objection is made to the whole, the court properly overruled such objection. Ortiz v. State, 68 Texas Crim. Rep., 524, 151 S. W. Rep., 1056, and cases there cited. In another bill it is shown that the witness Manuel Givens testified to what the deceased told him, as follows: "He told me that Bondy Francis shot him. He said he overtook him about a mile from New Berlin, and I asked him, 'Why, Sam, did he shoot you, what did he shoot you for? and he said, 'He didn't shoot me for nothing,' he said, 'Some old mess,' he didn't tell me which or what, he said, 'About some old mess.' He said, 'We got into a little fuss down at the house and Mr. Francis brought up this old mess, and I told him if he was going to bring up that old mess I would leave the house. After I got up the road a piece,' he said, he heard somebody loping and he said he saw Mr. Francis coming, and he told him, 'Bondy, you have come to kill me and I ain't got nothing, not even as much as a pin to stick in you.' And he said, 'Yes, I come to kill you, if you don't take back what you said I am going to kill you.' He said, 'I don't see any use taking it back, I have done said it, and I ain't got as much as a pin to stick in you.' And he said he just pulled out the gun and shot him." Then follows appellant's objections to this testimony, claiming that it was hearsay, not a dying declaration, etc. The bill in no way discloses anything else with reference to the status of the case or the evidence. therein. The court, in approving the bill, did so with this qualifica