Case Name: JONES v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1914-03-04
Citations: 165 S.W. 144
Docket Number: 
Parties: JONES v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 165
Pages: 144–147

Head Matter:
JONES v. STATE.
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
March 4, 1914.
On Motion for Rehearing, March 25, 1914.)
1. Criminal Law (§ 1064 ) —Appeal—-Motion por New Trial.-
Under the new rules of procedure, effective since July -1, 1913, only such matters as are presented in accused’s motion for new trial can be considered by the Court of Criminal Appeals.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2676-2684; Dec. Dig. § 1064. ]
2. Bigamy (§ 11 ) — Sufficiency oe Evidence.
Evidence in a bigamy prosecution held, to support a conviction.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Bigamy, Cent. Dig. §§ 50-53; Dec. Dig. § 11. ]
3. Criminal Law (§ 1064 ) — Appeal — Grounds por New Trial.
A ground of a motion for new trial, assigning error in refusing to submit accused’s special charge No. 1, is too general to be considered on appeal.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2676-2684; Dec. Dig. § 1064. ]
4. Criminal Law (§ 814 ) — Prosecution—Instructions— Applicability to Evidence.
A charge was requested that the law of bigamy should not extend to any person whose wife shall have been continually remaining out of the state, or shall have voluntarily withdrawn from the husband and remained absent for five years, the person marrying again not knowing his wife to be living within that time, so that, should the jury find that accused’s former. wife had voluntarily abandoned him and remained continually absent for five years before his second marriage, they should acquit. Meld, that the charge was properly refused, in view of evidence by accused that before his second marriage his son told him that his first wife was living, and asked him to see about it before remarrying.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 1821, 1833, 1839, 1860, 1865, 1883, 1890, 1924, 1979-1985, 1987; Dec. Dig. § 814. ]
5. Criminal Law (§ 404 ) — Admissions — Comparison op Handwriting.
A copy, which the sheriff had accused make in jail charged with bigamy, of a letter he claimed to have received from a sister-in-law, stating that she had learned that accused’s first wife was dead, could be used to compare accused’s handwriting and the sheriff could testify as to having had accused make copies of the purported letter, especially where accused had previously testified to the same fact.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 873, 891-893, 1457; Dec. Dig. § 404. ]
6. Criminal Law (§ 1169 ) — Harmless Error —Admission op Evidence.
In a prosecution for bigamy, there was no reversible error in admitting a divorce petition, filed by accused against his former wife after he was married a second time, where everything contained in the petition was shown by other evidence, and the affidavit of his attorney in the divorce action was introduced by consent, and showed accused’s connection with the divorce action, etc.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 754, 3088, 3130, 3137-3143; Dec. Dig. § 1169. ]
Appeal from District Court, Van Zandt County; R. W. Simpson, Judge.
J. S. Jones was convicted of bigamy, and appeals.
Affirmed.
Reese & Hubbard, of Grand Saline, for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
For other oases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. St Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
PRENDERGAST, P. J.
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 60 days after adjournment to file the bills of exceptions 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 bills of exceptions show to have been filed 77 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 exceptions, because the statement of facts was not filed at all in the court below and tlie bills of exceptions were filed 77 days after adjournment. The statute authorizes a statement of facts to be prepared and filed within 90 days from the adjournT ment of the term of court at which the cause is tried, or within 90 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 exceptions within 30 days'after the same time without any order of court, but authorizes the court to grant longer than 30 days and not to exceed 90 days under the same time and terms which the statement of facts can be filed. As the record appears to us, the Assistant Attorney General's motion to strike out both the statement of facts and bills of exceptions 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 that the indictment was returned in open court on March 20, 1913, and the indictment shows that the grand 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 exceptions.
The judgment is affirmed.