Case Name: PETTIGREW v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1916-03-29
Citations: 184 S.W. 508
Docket Number: No. 4005
Parties: PETTIGREW v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 184
Pages: 508–509

Head Matter:
PETTIGREW v. STATE.
(No. 4005.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
March 29, 1916.)
1. Okiminal Law <&wkey;1102 — Statement of Facts — Time of Filing.
Where accused was convicted in county court at a term lasting more than 8 weeks, the statement of facts, which was not filed within 90 days after the motion for new trial was overruled and sentence pronounced, must be stricken, not being filed within time.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Dee. Dig. &wkey;>1102.]
2. Cbiminal Law <&wkey;1092(7) — Appeal — Bills of Exception.
Where accused was convicted at a term of county court lasting more than 8 weeks, bills of exception not filed within 90 days after overruling motion for new trial and sentence cannot be considered.
' [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2850, 2852-2854; Dec. Dig. &wkey;1092(7)J
Appeal from District Court, Tarrant County; R. B. Young, Judge.
Charley Pettigrew was convicted of pursue ing the occupation of selling intoxicating liq uors in prohibition territory, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
C. O. McDonald, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
HARPER, J.
Appellant was convicted of pursuing the occupation of selling intoxicating liquors in prohibition territory.
The term of court at which he was tried lasted more than eight weeks, the term covering a period of three months. The motion for a new trial was overruled November 19, 1915, and sentence pronounced on appellant that day. The statement of facts was not filed in the trial court until February 24, 1916, more than ninety days after the motion for a new trial was overruled and sentence pronounced, and therefore not filed within the time authorized by law. The motion of the Assistant Attorney General to strike it from the record is therefore sustained.
The bills of exception were not filed until one day later, or February 25, 1916, and the motion to strike them from the record must also be sustained.
The contention is again made that the indictment is insufficient because it does not negative the exceptions contained in the statutes. This question was thoroughly diseussed in Slack v. State, 61 Tex. Cr. R. 373, 136 S. W. 1073, Ann. Cas. 1913B, 112, and we do not deem it necessary to again review the authorities. There was no error in overruling the motion to quash the indictment.
While the bills of exception have been stricken out on the motion of the Assistant Attorney General, yet we have read each of them, and they, nor either of them, would present error had they been filed within the time fixed by law.
The judgment is affirmed.
&wkey;oFor other eases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER, in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes