Hotsenpiller v. State

Appellant was tried and convicted by *10the court, without the intervention of the jury, upon an indictment charging him with the crime of forgery.

The only error urged is that the court erred in overruling appellant’s motion for a new trial.

The determination of the sufficiency of the causes assigned for a new trial depends upon the evidence.

The Attorney-General insists that the evidence is' not in the record. It appears from the record that the court found appellant guilty of forgery as charged in the indictment, and on the 22d day of August, 1895, the court rendered judgment on said finding.

No…