Case Name: MORGAN v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1916-01-12
Citations: 182 S.W. 451
Docket Number: No. 3905
Parties: MORGAN v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 182
Pages: 451–451

Head Matter:
MORGAN v. STATE.
(No. 3905.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Jan. 12, 1916.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 9, 1916.)
1. Criminal Law <&wkey;1092 — Appeal—Bill oic Exceptions — Approval.
The court on appeal from a conviction cannot consider a bill of exceptions from which the judge’s signature is omitted.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2S03, 2829, 2834r-2S61, 2919; Dec. Dig. <&wkey;>1092: Judges, Cent. Dig. § 157.]
2. Criminal Law <&wkey;1099 — Appeai>-Record —Statement op Facts — Time por Filing.
A statement of facts filed on October 23d on appeal from a conviction at a term adjourned September 25th cannot be considered; more than 20 days having elapsed.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2866-2880; Dec. Dig. &wkey;> 1099.]
3. Criminal Law <&wkey;1099 — Appeal—Record on Appeal — Statement op Facts — Approval.
A statement of facts not approved by the trial judge or signed by the prosecuting attorney cannot be considered.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Lot, Cent. Dig. §§ 2866-2880; Dec. Dig. <&wkey;>
Appeal from Baylor County Court; T. J. North, Judge.
C. A. Morgan was convicted of wife desertion, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Payne & Gamble, of Abilene, for appellant. C. C. McDonald, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
DAVIDSON, J.
Appellant was convicted, of wife desertion, his punishment being assessed at a fine of $200 and 90 days' imprisonment in the county jail.
There are several interesting questions presented. The record contains a bill of exceptions which is not approved by the judge. His signature does not appear to it in any form. This bill of exceptions, had it been approved, was filed on the 8th day of September, and was never, apparently at least, presented to the judge, because his name does not appear to it either approving or disapproving it. It therefore cannot be considered.
There is what purports to be a statement of facts which was filed on October 23d. The court adjourned on 25th day of September. The statement of facts was not filed within the 20 days required by the statute, even had it been approved by the trial judge, which was not done. The statement of facts is signed by the attorneys for the defendant, but not by the state's counsel nor approved by the judge; therefore it cannot be considered. In the absence of the statement of facts and bill of exceptions there is nothing re viewable, as it would be necessary to have the evidence in order to consider the matters urged.
The judgment is affirmed.