Case Name: J. T. Spillman v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1898-04-13
Citations: 39 Tex. Crim. 379
Docket Number: No. 1370
Parties: J. T. Spillman v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 39
Pages: 379–381

Head Matter:
J. T. Spillman v. The State.
No. 1370.
Decided April 13, 1898.
Motion for Rehearing Decided June 8, 1898.
1. Motion for New Trial—Statement of Facts Not Filed in Time.
A motion for new trial based upon matters growing out of evidence adduced on the trial can not be considered where the statement of facts can not be considered because filed more than one month subsequent to the adjournment of the court.
ON MOTION FOB REHEARING.
2. Statement of Facts—Filing After Adjournment.
A statement of facts will not be permitted to be filed as of term time after adjournment of court. There must be a special order entered upon the minutes granting authority to file the statement of facts after adjournment of court, and there is no authority for filing the same back as of term time with or without such order.
3. Same—Diligence to Frocure.
Where counsel for appellant grants unwarranted time to the State’s counsel to examine the statement, and the State’s counsel is direlict in his duty, the failure is owing alone to want of diligence by appellant’s counsel.
Appeal from the County Court of McLennan. Tried below before Hom.J. N. Gallagher, County Judge.
Appeal from a conviction for wounding a dumb animal; penalty, a fine of $10.
No statement necessary.
W. W. Walling and Mann Trice, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

Opinion:
DAVIDSON, Judge.
Appellant was convicted of wounding and maiming with a shotgun a certain three year old heifer, on cultivated lands of the defendant, said land being inclosed by an insufficient fence; said heifer being then and there within said inclosed lands. Appellant's motion for a new trial relates entirely to matters growing out of the evidence adduced on the trial. The statement of the facts can not be considered, because filed more than one month subsequent to the adjourn ment of court, and no reason is shown for the delay in said filing. The grounds of the motion can not therefore be considered. The judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.