Case Name: C. R. Palmer v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1922-03-15
Citations: 92 Tex. Crim. 640
Docket Number: No. 6850
Parties: C. R. Palmer v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 92
Pages: 640–643

Head Matter:
C. R. Palmer v. The State.
No. 6850.
Decided March 15, 1922.
Rehearing Denied November 29, 1922.
1. —Swindling—Statement of Facts — Bills of Exception — Extension.
In order to be within the rules and the requirements of the statutes, any order of extension for filing statement of facts or bills of exception must be made within the time theretofore granted, either by statute or by some order of the court, and the court could not make further extension when the time for filing had already expired, and the record therefore', is without statement of facts or bill of exceptions. Following Nothaf v. State, 91 Texas Crim. Rep., 378; however, the record being perfected, the case will be heard upon its merits.
2. —Same-Continuance—Want of Diligence — Motion for New Trial.
Where the application for continuance, because of the absence of several witnesses failed to show the diligence required by law, same was correctly overruled. Following Brown v. State, 36 Texas Crim. Rep., 119, and other cases; besides, the motion for new trial was not supported by affidavit of the absent witnesses, and no abuse of discretion was shown.
3. —Same—Ownership—Partnership—Indictment—Variance.
The fact that the alleged property belonged to the firm of which the alleged owner was a member did not vitiate the indictment or bring about the variance in the proof, as the law permitted the pleader to name said member as the owner. Following May v. State, 15 Texas Crim. App., 437, and other cases.
4. —Same—Evidence—False Representations — Book Entries — Knowledge of Entries.
It was incumbent upon the State to show that the alleged check was issued without reason to believe that it would be paid, and therefore the status of defendant’s relations with the bank upon which the check was drawn was relevant and competent evidence upon this subject, and there was no error to admit testimony that the owner did not know that the . entries in defendant’s bank book which were exhibited to him were forged.
5. —Same—Bill of Exceptions — Question and Answer Form — Suspended Sentence.
In the absence of a reason given for the failure to make the bill of exceptions more succinct, as required by the statute, a transcript of the stenographer’s notes in question and answer form will not be considered. However, as considered, there is no reversible error, as defendant’s plea of suspended sentence put his character in issue.
6. —Same—Question Propounded — Practice on Appeal.
Where the objection to the inquiry by State’s counsel to a witness was sustained by the court, no error appeared from the bill of exceptions making complaint of it.
Appeal from the Criminal District Court of Dallas. Tried below before the Honorable Robert B. Seay.
Appeal from a conviction of swindling; penalty, three years imprisonment in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case.
P. C. Short, and C. F. Greenwood, for appellant.
R. G. Storey, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.
— Cited cases in opinion.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, Judge.
— Appellant was convicted in the Criminal District Court of Dallas County of the offense of swindling, and his punishment fixed at three years in the penitentiary.
There appears in the record no statement of facts. The State, through our Assistant Attorney General, has moved to strike out appellant's bills of exception upon the ground that same were filed too late.
It appears from an. examination of the record that the trial term of the court below adjourned on October 1, 1921. Under the terms of Article 845 of our Code of Criminal Procedure the appellant was allowed thirty days in which to file his bills of exception. Within that thirty days and on October 14, 1921, the lower court made an order granting a thirty-day extension from October 16th, within which to file bills of exception. The time so granted by the court below expired November 15th.. No bills of exception were filed within said time. The record contains an order made by the trial court on November 30th granting to appellant an additional ten days in which to file bills of exception. On said last-mentioned date, according to the record before us, the trial court was without jurisdiction and had no power to enter any order of extension. In order to be within the rules and the requirements of the statute, any order of extension must be made within the time theretofore granted either by statute or by some order of the court. The last legal extension of time having expired November 15th, the trial court could not make further extension by an order of date November 30th. This matter is discussed and many authorities cited in Nothaf v. State, No. 6420, 91 Texas Crim. Rep., 378, opinion handed down on January 11, 1922. The bills of exception appear to have been filed on December 9th, and being too late the motion of the State, to strike same from the record, will be granted:
The record is thus before us without statement of facts or bills of exception. The indictment appears to be in form sufficient to charge appellant with the offense of swindling by the giving and drawing of a check for more than fifty dollars upon a bank in which he had no founds. The charge of the court below contains no error which we have observed, and the indictment and the charge being sufficient, and the record being without bills of exception and statement of facts, an affirmance is ordered.
Affirmed.