Case Name: LAWS v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1913-12-10
Citations: 164 S.W. 1015
Docket Number: 
Parties: LAWS v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 164
Pages: 1015–1016

Head Matter:
LAWS v. STATE.
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Dec. 10, 1913.
On Motion for Rehearing, March 18, 1914.)
Criminal Law (§ 1092 ) — Bill ox Exceptions — Time ox Filing — Diligence.
During the following week after court adjourned on August 16th, accused prepared a bill of exceptions and went to the county attorney’s office several times to submit the bill to him, and learned that he was in another city, and then took the papers to the county judge who declined to act upon them until the county attorney had seen them. On the 19th day after adjournment the county attorney claimed that he was then too busy to pass upon the bill, but would do so later. Accused then left the papers with the county attorney and did not again present them to the judge, and they were not presented to the judge until September 12th, 27 days after adjournment, when they were signed and filed. Held, that accused did not show such, diligence in having the bill of exceptions approved and filed as required by statute and the law, so that it cannot be considered on appeal.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2803, 2829, 2834-2861, 2919; Dec. Dig. § 1092. ]
Appeal from Ft. Bend County Court; W. I. McFarlane, Judge.
Mack Laws was convicted of aggravated assault, and appeals.
Affirmed.
J. C. Florea, of Richmond, for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
PRENDERGAST, P. J.
From a conviction of aggravated assault with a fine of $200, appellant prosecutes this appeal.
There is in the record what purports to be a statement of facts and some bills of exceptions, but neither of them show to have been filed in the lower court The Assistant Attorney General on that account makes the point that they cannot be considered, which is correct. There is no question raised by the motion for new trial which can be reviewed without a statement of facts or bills of exceptions.
The judgment is therefore affirmed.