Case Name: Luke Bostick v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1923-06-13
Citations: 95 Tex. Crim. 599
Docket Number: No. 7801
Parties: Luke Bostick v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 95
Pages: 599–601

Head Matter:
Luke Bostick v. The State.
No. 7801.
Decided June 13, 1923.
Rehearing denied November 7, 1923.
1. —Statement of Facts — Practice on Appeal.
When no statement of facts appeared on trial, when the original opinion was written, and it now appears that one was on file in the lower court, such carelessness as this causes this court inconvenience and delay in the disposition of cases.
2. —Same—Bills of Exception.
Where the term of the trial court extended more than eight weeks, appellant had by statute thirty days from the date of the overruling of his motion for a new trial in which to file his bills of exception, and where the court extended this time and the bills were filed within the time, they will now be considered.
3. —Same—Idem Sonans — Indictment.
Luke Bostic and Luke Bostick are idem sonans. Complaints against the unconstitutionality of the law possesses no merit and the indictment is sufficient.
4. —Same—Agency—Requested Charge.
Where, upon trial of selling intoxicating liquor, there was no evidence showing that defendant was the agent of the buyer there was no error in refusing to submit a requested charge thereon. There is no merit in the contention that the seller is not the owner of the liquor.
Appeal from the Criminal District Court of Dallas. Tried below before the Honorable C. A. Pippen.
Appeal from a conviction of selling intoxicating liquor; penalty, one year imprisonment in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case.
H. D. Wood for appellant.
R. G. Storey, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Opinion:
MORROW, Presiding Judge.
— The offense is the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor; punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for one year. u
We find no statement of facts, and the State's counsel objects to the consideration of the bills of exception for the reason that they were not filed within the time allowed by law. The court adjourned an eight-weeks term on the 31st day of March, 1923. The motion for new trial was overruled on the 26th day of January. Under the law, appellant was automatically given thirty days thereafter within which to file his bills of exception. See Art. 845, C. C. P. They were not filed until-the 29 th day of March. In-the absence of an extension of the time allowed by law within thirty days from the overruling of the motion for new trial, the bills filed are not entitled to consideration. This court has no authority to consider them. See Palmer v. State, 92 Texas Crim. Rep., 640, 245 S. W. Rep., 239; Sanders v. State, 60 Texas Crim. Rep., 34; Griffin v. State, 59 Texas Crim. Rep., 425; Jones v. State, No. 7760, not yet reported.
No error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.