Case ID: sw_160/html/0458-01.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

HUMPHRIES v. STATE.
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Oct. 29, 1913.)
    1. CRIMINAL Law (§ 1090) — Appeal—Bills op Exception — Necessity.
    Assignments of error in the motion for new trial as to the admissibility of evidence cannot be reviewed on a criminal appeal, in absence of bills of exception.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2653, 2789, 2803-2822, 2825-2827, 2927, 2928, 2948, 3204; Dec. Dig. § 1090.]
    2. Criminal Law (§ 1099) — Appeal—Statement op Facts — Signing and Approval.
    An alleged “statement of facts,” which was not signed or approved by the trial judge, cannot be considered for any purpose and will be stricken from the record.
    ,[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, , Cent. Dig. §§ 2866-2880; Dec. Dig. § 1099.]
    Appeal from Wichita County Court; C. B. Felder, Judge.
    A. Humphries was convicted of vagrancy, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Nicholson & Blankenship and Mathis & Kay, all of Wichita Falls, for appellant. G. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
    
      
      For otter oases see s'ame topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep’r Indexes
    
   HARPER, J.

Appellant was convicted of being a vagrant, in that he habitually associated with prostitutes and loitered habitually in and around houses of prostitution.

There are a number of complaints in the motion for a new trial in regard to the admissibility of certain testimony, but as no bills of exception thereto were reserved —at least none being in the record — we cannot review these questions.

There is a paper in the record styled “statement of facts,” but same was never signed nor approved by the judge trying the case, and therefore cannot be considered for any purpose. The motion of the Assistant Attorney General to strike it from the record is sustained. However, if we could consider same, taking into consideration the two special charges given at appellant’s request, no error would be presented.

The judgment is affirmed.