Case Name: Bill Sherwood v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1920-12-08
Citations: 88 Tex. Crim. 273
Docket Number: No. 5968
Parties: Bill Sherwood v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 88
Pages: 273–277

Head Matter:
Bill Sherwood v. The State.
No. 5968.
Decided December 8, 1920.
1. —Theft of Automobile—Caption of Transcript—Rule Stated.
In order to be considered, all the proceedings had in the case upon which conviction was obtained must be filed during the term of court shown in the caption, otherwise the trial was had at a term not authorized by law and the appeal must be dismissed. However, where the defect in the transcript was corrected, the case will be heard upon its merits.
2. —Same—Continuance—First Application—Rule Stated—Alibi—Accomplice.
Where, upon trial of theft of an automobile, the defendant pleaded an alibi, and the record on appeal showed that this was his first application for continuance to which the rule of cumulative testimony did not apply, and that the accomplice witness placed himself in the attitude of being the purchaser of what he knew to be stolen property, and of manufacturing testimony and committing perjury, the continuance .should have been granted and failure to do so was reversible error.
3.—Same—Practice on Appeal—Bills of Exception.
Where, other matters suggested by bills of exception, with reference to the name of the person injured and the duty of the grand jury in ascertaining his name, etc., will not arise upon another trial, it is not necessary to pass thereon.
Appeal from the District Court of Parker. Tried below before the Honorable F. 0. McKinsey.
Appeal from a conviction of theft of an automobile; penalty, .nine years imprisonment in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case
John L. Poulter, Mays & Mays and Carter & Queen, for appellant.
On question of overruling application for continuance: Wilson v. State, 18 Texas Crim. App., 585; Adams v. State, 19 id., 12; Irvine v. State, 20 id., 40; Hardin v. State, 52 Texas Crim. Rep., 239; Pearson v. State, 56 id., 610; Johnson v. State, 55 id., 134.
Alvin M. Owsley, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Opinion:
DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.
The caption of the transcript shows that the court convened on the 29th of September, 1919, and adjourned on the 21st day of November thereafter. The recognizance was entered into on the 24th day of April, 1920. Other papers pertaining to the trial seem to have been filed as if the court had been held in April. The caption does not so show. In order to be considered all the proceedings had in the case upon which conviction was obtained must be filed during the term of court shown in the caption, otherwise the trial was had at a term not authorized by. law, and the papers do not bear such authentication as to show that the court as set out in the caption tried appellant during the term -of court as held. We suppose that it was an error of the clerk in fixing the dates in the caption. That is simply a supposition. Because of want of a proper caption this appeal cannot be entertained. There is nothing before the court to consider because the papers, were not filed at a term of court shown to have been held as manifested by the caution.
The appeal will, therefore, be dismissed.
Dismissed.