Case Name: J. S. Jones v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1914-03-04
Citations: 73 Tex. Crim. 152
Docket Number: No. 3040
Parties: J. S. Jones v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 73
Pages: 152–157

Head Matter:
J. S. Jones v. The State.
No. 3040.
Decided March 4, 1914.
Rehearing denied March 25, 1914.
1. —Bigamy—Statement of Facts—Bills of Exception.
A statement of facts must be prepared and filed within ninety days from the adjournment of the term of court at which the cause is tried, or within ninety days after the motion for new trial is overruled and notice of appeal given in,case the term of court continues for a term longer than eight weeks.
2. —Same—Bills of Exception.
The statute provides for the filing of bills of exception within thirty days after the same time without any order of court, but authorizes the court to grant longer than thirty days, hut not to exceed ninety days under the same time and terms which the statement of facts can be filed.
3. —Same—Statement of Facts—Bills of Exception—Rehearing.
Where the case was affirmed because the statement of facts was not -filed in the court below and the hills of exception were filed too late, but on motion for rehearing it was made to appear that these were properly filed, the same are now considered.
4. —Same—Indictment—Filing.
Where it was claimed that the return of the indictment showed an impossible date, but the record showed that it was properly returned and filed in the lower court on a proper date, there was no error.
5. —Same—New Rules of Procedure.
Under the new rules of procedure which took effect since July 1, 1913, only such matters as are presented in defendant’s motion for new trial can be assigned as error and considered by this court. Following Gant v. State, recently decided.
6. —Same—Sufficiency of the Evidence.
Where, upon trial of bigamy, the evidence sustained the conviction, there was no error on that ground.
7. —Same—Requested Charge—General Objections.
An objection that the court erred in refusing to submit defendant’s special charge No. 1 is entirely too general to be considered; besides, there was no error in the court’s refusal of the same.
8. —Same—Bills of Exception—Comparison of Handwriting.
Upon trial of bigamy, there was no error in permitting the sheriff to testify about procuring defendant to write copies of a purported letter he had, on the ground that it was written in jail, the same being admitted only for the purpose of comparing his handwriting; besides, the bill of exceptions was defective. Following Ferguson v. State, 61 Texas Grim. Rep., 152, and other cases.
9. —Same—Evidence—Bill of Exceptions.
Where defendant objected to the introduction of a petition for divorce against his former wife after he had remarried, but the bill of exceptions failed to state the contents of said petition, there was no error; besides, the matter was testified to by defendant himself.
10. —Same—Charge of Court—Fabricating Testimony.
Where, upon trial of bigamy, defendant claimed as a defense that he had received a letter showing, that his former wife was dead and there was testimony that this letter was a fabrication, yet the court, in his charge, submitted this theory of the defense, and also submitted a full charge on the law as applicable to the facts, there was no error.
Appeal from the District Court of Van Zandt. Tried below before the Hon. B. W. Simpson.
Appeal from a conviction of bigamy; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case.
Reese & Hubbard', for appellant.
On question of admitting in evidence petition for divorce: Poss v. State, 83 S. W. Rep., 1109.
On question of admitting copies of letter in evidence: Clay v. State, 56 S. W. Rep., 629; Barnard v. State, 73 S. W. Rep., 957.
C. E. Lane, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.
On question of filing indictment: Smith v. State, 102 S. W. Rep., 407.

Opinion:
PBEHDEBGAST, Presiding Judge.
This is an appeal from a conviction for bigamy with the lowest penalty assessed.
The indictment was returned by the grand jury and filed in the lower court on March 20,1913. The term of court at which this trial was had convened October 13th and adjourned on ¡November 7, 1913. At the time the motion for new trial was overruled, the court allowed sixty days after adjournment to file the bills of exception and statement of facts. There is with the record what purports to be a statement of facts but it shows not to have been filed at all in the lower court. The several hills of exception show to have been filed seventy-seven days after the adjournment. The Assistant Attorney-General has made a motion to strike out and not consider said statement of facts and bills of exception, because the statement of facts was not filed at all in the court below and the bills of exception were filed seventy-seven days after adjournment. The statute authorizes a statement of facts to be prepared and filed within ninety days from the adjournment of the term of court at which the cause is tried, or within ninety days after the motion for new trial is overruled and notice of appeal given in case the term of court continues for a term longer than eight weeks. The statute also provides for the filing of bills of exception within thirty days after the same time without any order of court, but authorizes the court to grant longer than thirty days and not to exceed ninety days under the same time and terms which the statement of facts can lie filed. As the record appears to us, the Assistant Attorney-General's motion to strike out both the statement of facts and bills of exception is well taken, is granted and said documents are struck out and not considered.
Appellant made a motion to quash the indictment because it shows to have been returned into the District Court in the year A. D., 190— and because it shows if any offense was committed it was committed 1721 years subsequent to the return of said indictment. There is no bill of exceptions on this subject. The record before us shows no such state of facts as is set out in said motion; but, on the contrary, it shows the indictment was returned in open court on March 20, 1913, and the indictment shows that the grapd jury was organized at the spring term 1913 of said court and the indictment was filed in said lower court on March 20, 1913, and alleges the offense was committed on or about December 6, 1911. Of course, the court committed no error in overruling said motion to quash the indictment.
There is nothing else raised which we can consider in the absence - of a statement of facts or bills of exception. The judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.