ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
MORRISON, Presiding Judge.Appellant challenges the conclusion which we reached in our original disposition of his Bill of Exception No. 1. The bill recites that the judge prepared and submitted to counsel his written charge in the case. We find no objections to the charge in the record. The bill further recites that the court instructed the jury that “here was the charge of the court and that they could read the same when they retired for their deliberations” but that he “failed and refused” to read it to them. The bill does not recite that the appellant at any time requested that it be read.
Appellant relies upon two cases: In Howard v. State, 90 Texas Cr. Rep. 270, 47 S.W. 2d 834, no written charge was given, and in Hale v. State, 120 Texas Cr. Rep. 68, 47 S.W. 2d 834, the court charged the jury orally over the objection of the appellant. Neither case is here controlling.
Article 666 is a limitation upon this court’s authority to reverse a conviction involving the disregard of the provisions of certain statutes. It merely says that a disregard of the statute plus injury must be shown in order to bring about a reversal of the conviction.
Clearly, the appellant could have shown injury by proving at the hearing on his motion for new trial, for example, that the jury did not in fact read the charge after they had retired.
Remaining convinced that we properly disposed of this cause originally, appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.