Appellant was convicted of robbery and assessed the lowest punishment.

The statement of facts is wholly m question and answer form. The State has made a motion to strike it out and not consider it. Under the statutes and the many and uniform decisions of this court the State’s motion must be granted. A great number of cases down to the present time could be cited but we deem it unnecessary. We here cite some of them: Hargrave v. State, 53 Texas Crim. Rep., 147; Essary v. State, 53 Texas Crim. Rep., 596; Baird v. State, 51 Texas Crim. Rep., 322; *325 Brown v. State, 57 Texas Crim. Rep., 269; King v. State, 57 Texas Crim. Rep., 363; Kempner v. State, 57 Texas Crim. Rep., 355; Felder v. State, 59 Texas Crim. Rep., 144; Choate v. State, 59 Texas Crim Rep., 266; Hart v. State, 67 Texas Crim. Rep., 417; Criner v. State, 71 Texas Crim. Rep., 369; Stephens v. State, 77 Texas Crim. Rep., 30.

Appellant made a motion for a continuance and he has some very defective and incomplete bills to the admission of certain testimony. Hone of these matters can be considered in the absence of a statement of facts as has all the time been held by this court in a great number of decisions.

Hence, the judgment must be affirmed.

Affirmed.