Case Name: MEDFORD v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1915-01-27
Citations: 174 S.W. 607
Docket Number: No. 3397
Parties: MEDFORD v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 174
Pages: 607–608

Head Matter:
MEDFORD v. STATE.
(No. 3397.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Jan. 27, 1915.
On Motion for Rehearing, Feb. 24, 1915.
State’s Rehearing Denied March 24, 1915.)
1. Ceiminal Law @=>1097 — Appeal—Recoed —Denial ox Continuance. •
In the absence of a statement of facts, denial of a continuance for the absence of a witness cannot be revised.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2862, 2864, 2926, 2934, 2938, 2939, 2941, 2942, 2947; Dec. Dig. @=>1097.]
On Motion for Rehearing.
2. Ceiminal Law @=>1106 — Recoed—Statement ox Facts.
Where a statement of facts was properly approved and filed in the trial court within the required time, and should have accompanied the record, but the clerk failed to forward it, the clerk certifying to the facts and forwarding the statement of facts will make it a part of the record on appeal.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2890-2892; Dec. Dig. @=> 1106.]
3. Ceiminal Law @=>594 — Continuance — Absence ox Witnesses.
Where the state’s theory was that accused shot at prosecutor with a view of killing him, and that the bullet passed within a foot of where prosecutor stood, while the theory of accused was that the gun was accidentally dis charged, and that the bullet did not pass within 8 or 10 feet of prosecutor, denial'of a continuance on the ground of the absence of a witness who would testify in support of accused’s theory was reversible error, where due diligence to procure the witness before trial was shown.
[Ed. Note. — Eor other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. .§§ 1321, 1322, 1332; Dec. Dig. ©=>594.]
Appeal from District Court, Fannin County; Ben H. Denton, Judge.
R. E. Medford was convicted of crime, and he appeals.
Reversed and remanded on motion for rehearing.
J. W. Donaldson and Cunningham & McMahon, of Bonham, Tex., for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
DAVIDSON, J.
This record is before us without a statement of facts. Under an indictment charging assault with intent to murder appellant was convicted of aggravated assault. In the absence of statement of facts appellant's assignment of error on the refusal of the continuance cannot be intelligently revised. The matters set forth in the motion for new trial are in the same condition. In order to intelligently review those matters the testimony would be necessary.
As the record is presented, the judgment will be affirmed.
@^»For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes