Case Name: Bennie Tippins v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1919-11-12
Citations: 86 Tex. Crim. 205
Docket Number: No. 5532
Parties: Bennie Tippins v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 86
Pages: 205–207

Head Matter:
Bennie Tippins v. The State.
No. 5532.
Decided November 12, 1919.
Rehearing denied January 14, 1920.
1..—Delinquent Child—Final Judgment—Jurisdiction.
In the aSbence of a final judgment jurisdiction will not attach to this court; however, the record having been perfected the dismissal heretofore entered is set aside.
2.—Same—Continuance—Bill of Exceptions.
In the absence of a bill of exceptions, the action of the court in overruling a motion for continuance cannot be reviewed on appeal. Following: Nelson v. State, 1 Texas Grim. App., 44, and other cases.
'3.—Same—Complaint—Negro Race—Flace of Confinement—Judgment.
Where it was urged on proceedings against a delinquent child that the complaint should have alleged that defendant was a negro, for the reason that a separate place of confinement is provided for negro delinquents, the same is untenable; besides, the judgment could have been corrected either upon trial or appeal.
4.—Same—Rehearing—Aggravated Assault—Minor.
Where appellant contended that the facts would not bring the offense within any of the subdivisions of the statute defining aggravated assault, he being a minor, would not avail him, because if he had violated any laws o£ the State he was subject to the delinquent child Act, and where the evidence showed that appellant made an assault upon a female child calculated to inflict shame and disgrace, the same constituted a violation of the criminal laws of the State, and authorized the judgment from which this appeal was taken. Distinguishing: Miller v. State, 67 Texas Grim. Rep., 654, 150 S. W. Rep.,635.
5.—Same—Juvenile Daw—Delinquent Child Act.
The delinquent child Act has been upheld in many of its provisions, and while it stands unchanged the courts must enforce it as they find it; and the matter of change is a legislative and not a judicial question. Following: Ex parte McLoud, 82 Texas Grim. Rep., 299, 200 S. W. Rep., 394.
Appeal from the County Court of Tarrant. Tried below before the Hon. Hugh L. Small, judge.
Appeal from a conviction of assault with intent to rape; penalty, two years and six months imprisonment in the State Training School for Boys.
The opinion states the case.
Bee Estes, and Gillespie & Pritchard, for appellant.
Alvin M. Owsley, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.
On question of sufficiency of the evidence: Hawkins v. State, 27 Texas Crim. Rep., 273; McCormick v. State, 52 Texas Crim. Rep., 493; Hunger v. State, 57 id., 384.

Opinion:
MORROW, Judge.
The appellant was tried as a delinquent child, was found guilty by a jury, filed a motion for a new trial, which was overruled, and notice of appeal given. We fail to find in the record any judgment on the verdict of the jury, or any order of the court directing the disposition to be made of the appellant. In this state of the record, we think we are without jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. This is a criminal proceeding. See Art. 1197, title 17 as amended in the Acts of the Thirty-fifth Legislature, Fourth Called Session, Chapter 26. The requisite of a judgment sufficient to support an appeal will be found in Vernon's Texas Criminal Statutes, vol. 2, title 9, chapter 3, p. 847.
Because of the absence of the final judgment, the appeal is dismissed.
Dismissed.