Case Name: SHERWOOD v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1920-11-17
Citations: 225 S.W. 1101
Docket Number: No. 5968
Parties: SHERWOOD v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 225
Pages: 1101–1102

Head Matter:
SHERWOOD v. STATE.
(No. 5968.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Nov. 17, 1920.
Rehearing Granted Dec. 8, 1920.)
1. Criminal law &wkey;»!104(2) — Appeal will be dismissed for want of proper caption of transcript.
Where the papers pertaining to the trial were not filed at a term of court shown to have been held as manifested by the caption of the transcript, the appeal will be dismissed.
On Motion for Rehearing.
2. Criminal law <&wkey;596(2) — Refusal of continuance for absence of witness to corroborate defendant’s wife’s testimony held error.
In prosecution for automobile theft in which defendant claimed an alibi, refusal of first application for a continuance for absence of witness, who would have corroborated testimony of defendant’s wife that ■ defendant at time of the commission of the crime was not in the town in which the crime was committed, was error, notwithstanding cumulative nature of the testimony.
3.Criminal law <&wkey;596(2) — Rule as to continuance for cumulative testimony not applicable where testimony corroborates wife, husband, or near relative.
The rule that a continuance will not be granted for absence of witness whose testimony will be merely cumulative does not apply to the first application for a continuance or to testimony in corroboration of the husband or the wife or a near relative of the accused.
■ Appeal from District Court, Parker County; F. O. McKinsey, Judge.
Bill Sherwood was convicted of automobile theft, and he appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
John L. Poulter and Mays & Mays, both of Ft. Worth, and Carter & Queen, of Weather-ford, for appellant.
Alvin M. Owsley, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
DAVIDSON, P. J.
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 caption.
The appeal will therefore be dismissed.
dSucaFor other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes