The overruling of the motion for continuance was not complained of in appellant's motion for new trial and no affidavit of the witnesses is found in the record. The overruling of the motion for new trial shows no error. Parsons v. State, 160 Tex.Cr.R. 387, 271 S.W.2d 643; Encinas v. State, 161 Tex.Cr.R. 293, 276 S.W.2d 817; Morris v. State, 158 Tex.Cr.R. 516, 251 S.W.2d 731. The informal bills have been considered and no reversible error appears.

The trial court is not shown to have abused his discretion in overruling the motion for new trial. See Hawkins v. State, 156 Tex.Crim. R., 238 S.W.2d 779; Suit v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 274 S.W.2d 701; Encinas v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 276 S.W.2d 817. The legality of the arrest is questioned on several grounds, and it is argued that the evidence as to the narcotic found by the officers at the time of the arrest was inadmissible.

Defects of form were not fundamental errors that automatically invalidated charging instruments. See Encinas v. State, 161 Tex.Crim. 293, 276 S.W.2d 817, 818 (1955). A defect of form that did not prejudice a defendant's substantial rights could be waived if not properly brought to the court's attention.