Case ID: tex-crim_34/html/0283-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "HENDERSON, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Will Irby v. The State.
    
      No. 737.
    
    
      Decided March 27.
    
    Statement of Facts—Order for Filing After Adjournment—Practice on Appeal.—The making of an order to file the statement of facts, at any time within ten days after adjournment of the term, under provisions of article 1379, Revised Statutes, is within the sound discretion of the trial judge; and unless it is made to appear that this discretion has been abused, a refusal by the court to make such order will not be revised on appeal.
    Appeal from the County Court of Tarrant. Tried below before Hon. Robert G. Johnson, County Judge.
    Appellant was prosecuted by information, and convicted for an aggravated assault upon one George Meaehum, by cutting and stabbing him with a knife, a deadly weapon, his punishment being assessed at a fine of $25.
    Ho statement is necessary.
    Ho briefs for appellant.
    
      Mann Trice, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.
   HENDERSON, Judge.

This appeal is from a conviction for aggravated assault. There is no statement of facts in the case. The only bill of exceptions in the record shows, that appellant filed a motion on the lást day of the term, asking that ten days be allowed him after the adjournment of the court within which to file a statement of facts. This motion was overruled by the court, and defendant excepted. The court qualifies the bill by showing that the case was tried October 4, 1894, and said motion was filed ¡November 4, 1894. Article 1379, Revised Statutes, provides, that “the court may, by an order entered upon the record during the term, authorize the statement of facts to be made up and signed and filed in.vacation, at any time not exceeding ten days after the adjournment of the term.” The making of such order is within the sound discretion of the trial judge, and unless such discretion appears to have been abused, this court will not revise the action of the trial judge in refusing to make such order. In this case it does not appear that there was an abuse of such discretion in the refusal of the judge to grant the ten-day order.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Judges all present and concurring.