Case Name: CLARK v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1926-10-13
Citations: 288 S.W. 1075
Docket Number: No. 9546
Parties: CLARK v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 288
Pages: 1075–1077

Head Matter:
CLARK v. STATE.
(No. 9546.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Oct. 13, 1926.
Rehearing Denied Dec. 15, 1926.)
Ramey & Davidson, of Sulphur Springs, for appellant.
Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., of Austin, and Robt; M. Lyles, Asst. State’s Atty., of Groesbeck, for the State.

Opinion:
MORROW, P. J.
The offensé is the unlawful mánufacture of intoxicating liquor; punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for one year.
The statement of facts was filed within 90 days after adjournment of the term of court at which the trial took place, but more iban 90 days after the motion for new trial was overruled, and notice of appeal given. The court allowed 90 days after adjournment. However, the statute covering the matter restricted his authority to the allowance of 90 days after notice of appeal. See article 760, C. C. P. 1925. This court is not authorized to consider a statement of facts not filed within the space of time allowed by statute. See Bailey v. State, 104 Tex. Cr. R. 150, 282 S. W. 804; Johnson v. State, 104 Tex. Cr. R. 384, 283 S. W. 807.
We find nothing in the record bringing it within the rule stated in George v. State, 25 Tex. Crim. App. 229, by which the statement of facts might be considered, if the delay was not due to a lack of diligence upon the part of the appellant. See Clampitt v. State, 96 Tex. Cr. R. 149, 256 S. W. 272; Dyer v. State, 96 Tex. Cr. R. 304, 257 S. W. 902, and cases cited; also 2 Vernon's Tex. Crim. Stat. p. 837, note 20.
In the record there is found a bill of exceptions complaining of the refusal of the court to continue the ease. The application for a continuance is addressed to the sound judicial discretion of the court. On appeal, the averments in the motion to continue are to be considered in connection with the evidence adduced upon the trial, so that the appellate court may determine, in the light of the evidence, whether the absent testimony was such as to show that, in- refusing to grant a new trial, there was an abuse of discretion by the trial court. Without the evidence heard upon the trial in the present case, this court is not able to' determine that in refusing to continue the case the court was in error. The precedents upon the subject are numerous. Many of them are collated in 2 Vernon's Tex. Grim. Stat. p. 320, note 34.
Finding nothing in the record which would justify this court in ordering a reversal, the judgment is affirmed.