Case Name: Mattie Toliver v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1912-03-06
Citations: 65 Tex. Crim. 475
Docket Number: No. 1590
Parties: Mattie Toliver v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 65
Pages: 475–476

Head Matter:
Mattie Toliver v. The State.
No. 1590.
Decided March 6, 1912.
Theft—Statement of Pacts.
Where the statement of facts and bills of exception were not filed within time, they must he stricken out on motion of the State. Following Mosher v. State, 62 Texas Crim. Rep., 42, and other cases.
Appeal from the County Court of Waller. Tried below before the Hon. J. D. Harvey.
Appeal from a conviction of theft; penalty, a fine of $50 and thirty days in jail.
The opinion states the case.
A. G. Lipscomb & W. J. Poole, for appellant.
C. E. Lane, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

Opinion:
PRENDERGAST, Judge.
By proper affidavit and information the appellant was charged with theft of property under the value of $50. The County Court, in which the case was tried, convened on May 1, 1911, and adjourned for the term on May 20, 1911. On May 4 the cause was tried, appellant convicted and fined $50 and thirty days in jail.
The court improperly allowed thirty days after adjournment for the filing of a statement of facts and bills of exceptions. There is a purported bill of exceptions and a purported statement of the facts filed twenty-six days after the adjournment. The State objects to the consideration of either of these matters, because not filed in time as required by law. This contention is correct and the statement of facts and bill of exceptions will not be considered. Misso v. State, 61 Texas Crim. Rep., 241, 135 S. W., 1173; Blackshire v. State, 33 Texas Crim. Rep., 160; Dement v. State, 39 Texas Crim. Rep., 276; Williams v. State, 35 Texas Crim. Rep., 371; Irby v. State, 34 Texas Crim. Rep., 283; Mosher v. State, 62 Texas Crim. Rep., 42, 136 S. W., 467; Griffin v. State, 62 Texas Crim. Rep., 98, 136 S. W., 778; Moore v. State, 62 Texas Crim. Rep., 119, 136 S. W., 1067; Gentry v. State, 62 Texas Crim. Rep., 497, 137 S. W., 696.
The court gave a correct charge which would be applicable to a state of proof that could be made under the complaint and information. The questions attempted to be raised can not be considered without a statement of facts.
The judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.