Case Name: Jack Mansfield, alias Elisha Mansfield, v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1911-04-12
Citations: 62 Tex. Crim. 631
Docket Number: No. 1119
Parties: Jack Mansfield, alias Elisha Mansfield, v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 62
Pages: 631–635

Head Matter:
Jack Mansfield, alias Elisha Mansfield, v. The State.
No. 1119.
Decided April 12, 1911.
Rehearing Denied June 21, 1911.
1. —Murder—Statement of Facts—Filing.
Where the court continues eight weeks or longer the statute requires the statement of facts to be filed within thirty days from the time of the final judgment which is the sentence. However, where it was not defendant’s fault in not filing the statement in time the case will be heard on its merits.
2. —Same—Practice on Appeal—Charge of Court.
An objection in the motion for new trial that the court should have charged on manslaughter is too general to be considered on appeal.
3. —Same—Insult to Female Relative—First Meeting.
Where, upon trial of murder, the evidence showed that the killing did not take place at the first meeting of defendant and deceased after the insult was communicated to defendant, but at a subsequent meeting, the court did not err in not submitting a charge thereon.
4. —Same—Charge of Court—Defense of Property.
Where, upon trial of murder, the evidence showed that the deceased took a cigar from defendant at which the latter became offended, went away, armed himself, returned, threw down some money and challenged deceased to take it, and upon the latter reaching out to get it, shot the deceased, there was no error in the court’s failure to charge on the defense of property.
5. —Same—Practice on Appeal—Weight of Evidence—Charge of Court.
An objection that the charge of the court as a whole is upon the weight of the evidence is entirely too general, besides the charge was not on the weight of the evidence.
6. —Same—Sufficiency of the Evidence—Charge of Court.
Where the evidence sustained the conviction of murder in the first degree, and the court charged on both degrees of murder, there was no reversible error.
Appeal from the District Court of Jefferson. Tried below before the Hon. W. H. Pope.
Appeal from a conviction of murder in the first degree; penalty, imprisonment in the penitentiary for life.
The opinion states the case.
B. E. Moore, for appellant.
On question of manslaughter: Halliburton v. State, 32 Texas Crim. Rep., 51; Cochran v. State, 28 Texas Crim. App., 422; Jones v. State, 33 Texas Crim. Rep., 492.
O. E. Lane, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

Opinion:
DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.
Appellant was convicted of murder in the first degree, his punishment being assessed at confinement for life.
There are no bills of exception in the record, and the matters in the motion for a new trial can not be considered without the statement of facts as they pertain to the charge given by the court.
The court met on the 2d day of May and adjourned on the 17th of September. Appellant was sentenced on the 18th of May. The statement of facts was filed on the 10th of October, nearly thirty days after adjournment of the court. Where the court continues eight weeks or longer, the statute requires the statement of facts to be filed within thirty days from the time of the final judgment, which is the sentence. Under this provision of the statute the statement of facts should have been filed anyhow by the 19th of June, unless an order was granted extending the time. It was not so filed, nor was it filed until the 10th of October following the adjournment of court on the 17th of September. This delay is not accounted for. The statement of facts as presented in this record can not be considered, and without the evidence before us we can not review the questions suggested for revision.
As this record presents the appeal to us, the judgment' must be affirmed, and it is accordingly so ordered.
Affirmed.