Case ID: sw_164/html/0002-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "HARPER, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

TERRY v. STATE.
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Feb. 18, 1914.)
    Criminal Law (§ 1090*) — Appeal—Record-Review.
    Matters stated in an affidavit attached to the motion for new trial, not being verified by bill of exceptions or statement of facts, cannot be considered on appeal.
    TEd. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent: Dig. §§ 2653, 2789, 2803-2822, 2825-2827, 2927, 2928, 2948, 3204; Dec.Dig. § 1090.*.]
    
      Appeal from Gregg County Court; J. H. McHaney, Judge.
    Zeb Terry was convicted, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for tbe State.
   HARPER, J.

Appellant was proseeutéd and convicted of unlawfully betting and wagering at a game of cards, and Ms punishment assessed at a fine of $10. The indictment charges an offense, and no statement of facts nor any bills of exceptions accompany the record. Attached to the motion for a new trial is the affidavit of J. M. Farr, who stated that he was one of the jurors in tMs case, as well as the ease against George Lamont, and that he thought, during the trial of this case, he was to pass on the guilt or innocence of both parties at the same time. The affidavit as made presents a queer situation; but it states matters not verified by the record. If, as a matter of fact, the case of George Lamont was called and proceeded to trial, and the trial then suspended, and appellant placed on trial, if the same jury was called and on examination stated they had formed an opirnon as to the guilt of this defendant, this fact should have been verified by bill of exception; if no objection was made to the juror after he had stated such facts, it would be too late to complain after verdict. The record discloses that George Lamont was not tried at the same time as appellant. If the matters were properly presented, they might be erroneous; but as here presented we cannot consider them in the absence of any bill of exception or statement of facts.

Affirmed.