Case Name: Sam Shrewder v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1911-01-25
Citations: 62 Tex. Crim. 403
Docket Number: No. 852
Parties: Sam Shrewder v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 62
Pages: 403–410

Head Matter:
Sam Shrewder v. The State.
No. 852.
Decided January 25, 1911.
Rehearing Denied May 24, 1911.
1.—Theft—Statements of Facts and Bills of Exception—Practice on Appeal.
Where, upon appeal from a conviction of theft, it appeared from the record that the statement of facts was presented to the county attorney within the time allowed by law, hut the latter would not agree thereto, it was the duty of appellant arid his counsel to present the matter to the judge to make up a statement of facts, and where this was not done the diligence was not sufficient, and the same can not be considered on appeal; and the indictment being sufficient, the judgment must be affirmed.
2. —Same—Antedating Pile Marks.
An agreement between counsel to antedate a statement of facts in filing the same is a practice which can not be tolerated.
3, —Same—Charge of Court—Indictment—Bailment—Words and Phrases—Practice on Appeal—Article 723.
Where the indictment charged the defendant with having in his possession the alleged stolen money by virtue of his contract of borrowing for the purpose of counting the same, and the court instructed the jury in the language of the indictment, but added thereto the words, “or other bailment,” the same, in the absence of a statement of facts, sufficiently submitted the offense alleged in the indictment, and under article 723, Code Criminal Procedure, ' there was no reversible error.
Appeal from the District Court of Tarrant County. Tried below before the Hon. R. H. Buck.
Appeal from a conviction of theft; penalty, ten years imprisonment in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case.
Lattimore, Cummings, Doyle & Bouldin, for appellant.
On question that it was not appellant’s fault in not procuring statement of facts: Shaffer v. State, 58 Texas Crim. Rep., 646; id., 647, 127 S. W. Rep., 206; id., 207; Johnson v. State, 16 Texas Crim. App., 372.
On question of insufficiency of indictment: Smith v. State, 38 Texas Crim. Rep., 232, 42 S. W. Rep., 302; Yost v. State, 38 S. W. Rep., 192; McCarty v. State, 78 S. W. Rep., 506.
On question of the court’s charge in submitting the issue of bailment: Harrison v. State, 60 S. W. Rep., 963; Grant v. State, 127 S. W. Rep., 173; Williams v. State, 53 Texas Crim. Rep., 2, 108 S. W. Rep., 371; Emerson v. State, 54 Texas Crim. Rep., 628, 114 S. W. Rep., 834; Whitcomb v. State, 30 Texas Crim. App., 269.
C. E. Lane, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

Opinion:
HARPER, Judge.
In this case the appellant was tried in the District Court of Tarrant County, found guilty, and his punishment assessed at ten years confinement in the penitentiary.
There are no bills of exception in the record, and the record shows that the term of court at which defendant was tried adjourned on the 6th day of November, 1909, while the statement of facts was not filed until the 25th day of June, 1910. With the papers, we find an affidavit of appellant's attorney that the statement of facts was presented, to the county attorney within the time allowed by law. There is also an affidavit of the county attorney that said statement of facts was not presented to him until the expiration of the time in which it could he filed. The statement of facts is signed neither by appellant's counsel nor by the county attorney. Attached to the papers, filed as a statement .of facts, is a statement of the judge trying the cause, that it was never presented to him until the 25th day of June, 1910. Admitting, as stated by appellant's counsel, that the statement was presented to the county attorney within the time allowed by law, yet upon their failure to agree it was his duty to present the matter to the judge, and request him to make up a statement of facts. This was not done until long after the time had elapsed; in fact, the record shows six months had elapsed. In this state of the record, this court can not consider the statement of facts, and in the absence of a statement of' facts, if the charge is applicable to any state of facts that might be proven under the allegations contained in the indictment, this court will assume that the court below submitted to the jury the law of the case and all the law required by the testimony and any portion of same. Wriglit v. State, 37 Texas Crim. Rep., 146; Jones v. State, 34 Texas Crim. Rep., 642; Bell v. State, 33 Texas Crim. Rep., 163.
The indictment is in accordance with the form laid down in White's Annotated Penal Code, and we think sufficient.
The judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.