Case Name: Ben Diggs v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1911-11-08
Citations: 64 Tex. Crim. 122
Docket Number: No. 1365
Parties: Ben Diggs v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 64
Pages: 122–127

Head Matter:
Ben Diggs v. The State.
No. 1365.
Decided November 8, 1911.
Rehearing denied December 6, 1911.
1. —Intimidation—Statement of Facts.
Where the statement of facts and bills of exception were not filed within twenty days from adjournment of the County Court, they can not be considered on appeal.
2. —Same—Indictment—Precedent.
Where, upon trial of intimidation, the indictment followed precedent, there was no error, and it was not necessary to set out the threatening words or specific acts of violence. Following Luter v. State, 32 Texas Crim. Rep., 69, and other cases.
3.—Same—Bill of Exceptions.
Presenting hills of. exceptions to the judge is not a filing thereof, they must be presented to the clerk for filing within proper time.
4.—Same—Statement of Facts.
Where it appeared on appeal that appellant did present a statement of facts to the proper officials at the proper time, and the same was not approved and filed by no fault of appellant, the statement will be considered.
5.—Same—Charge of Court—Requested Charges.
Where, upon trial of intimidation, the court fairly submitted the issues, and the issues submitted in the defendant’s requested charges were not raised by the evidence, and the conviction was .sustained by the evidence, there was no error.
Appeal from the Comity Court of Hall. Tried below before the Hon. Jno. D. Bird.
Appeal from a conviction of intimidation; penalty, a fine of $25.
The opinion states the case.
Stovall Johnson, for appellant.
On question of insufficiency of indictment: Vaughan v. State, 9 Texas Crim. App., 563; Huntsman v. State, 12 Texas Crim. App., 619.
On question of insufficiency of evidence: Snow v. State, 41 Texas, 596; Ranch v. State, 5 Texas Crim. App., 363.
C. E. Lane, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

Opinion:
HARPER, Judge.
Appellant prosecutes this appeal from a conviction in the County Court of Hall County, wherein he was charged with intimidation under article 600 of the Penal Code.
The assistant attorney-general has filed a motion asking that the statement of facts and bills of exception be stricken from the record. As neither the bills of exception nor the statement of facts were filed within twenty days from the date of adjournment of the term, and this being a case tried in the Count)' Court, the motion is sustained. Acts of first called session of Thirtieth Legislature, chapter 7, page 446, session acts.
There is a motion to quash the indictment in the record, but inasmuch as the indictment charges , an offense under article 600 of the Penal Code, and is in exact conformance with the form drawn by Judge White, a former member of this court, and published in White's Penal Code (see see. 988), the court did not err in overruling the motion.
The court in his charge submitted the offense charged in the indictment, and inasmuch as there is no statement of facts we can consider, this court presumes that the court charged the law, and all the law applicable to the facts introduced in evidence.
The judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.