Case Name: JOHNSON v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1913-06-18
Citations: 159 S.W. 848
Docket Number: 
Parties: JOHNSON v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 159
Pages: 848–849

Head Matter:
JOHNSON v. STATE.
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
June 18, 1913.
On Motion for Rehearing, Oct. 15, 1913.)
1. Criminal Law (§§ 1092, 1099 ) — -Appeal-Bill op Exceptions — Time for Filing.
Where the trial court adjourned on December 21, 1912, and the statement of facts and bill of exceptions in a criminal prosecution were not filed until May 8th following, they were too ¡ate and cannot be considered.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2803, 2829, 2834-2861, 2866-2880, 2919; Dec. Dig. §§ 1092, 1099. ]
On Motion for Rehearing.
2. Criminal Law (§§ 1092, 1099 ) — Appeal— Bill of Exceptions and Statement of Facts — Effect of Failure to Procure.
Where a convicted person used due diligence to obtain a bill of exceptions or statement of facts in time, but failed through no fault of his own, the judgment should be reversed.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2803, 2829, 2834-2861, 2866-2880, 2919; Dec. Dig. §§ 1092, 1099. ]
3. Criminal Law (§§ 1092, 1099 )—Appeal-Bill of Exceptions and Statement op Facts—Eppect op Delay in Filins.
Where one convicted of a crime did not file his bill of exceptions or statement of facts within the time required by statute, through no fault of his own or of his attorneys, and thereafter the judge received and certified the bill and statement to be correct, the Court of Criminal Appeals may consider them.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. |§ 2803, 2829, 2834-2861, 2866-2880, 2919; Dec. Dig. §§ 1092, 1099. ]
4. Criminal Law (§ 1133 )—Appeal—Bill op Exceptions and Statement op Facts—Delay in Filing—Excuse.
Where a motion for rehearing, filed after a judgment of conviction had been affirmed for want of a bill of exceptions and statement of facts in the record, charged that the delay was due to the fault of the trial judge, and that affidavits of the attorneys in support thereof would be filed, but no such affidavits were ever filed, there was no sufficient showing that the appellant was deprived of his bill of exceptions or statement of facts without fault on his part, and the rehearing will be denied.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 2984; Dec. Dig. § 1133. ]
Appeal from Shelby County Court; Edgar W. Hooker, Judge.
Sam Johnson was convicted of an aggravated assault, and he appeals.
Judgment affirmed, and motion for rehearing overruled.
Thomas O. Davis and J. P. Anderson, both of Center, for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
DAVIDSON, P. J.
Appellant was convicted of an aggravated assault; his punishment being assessed at a fine of $25.
The county court adjourned on the 21st of December, 1912. The statement of facts and bills of exception were filed on the Sth of the following May. This was too late. These matters cannot be considered. With the evidence and bills of exception eliminated there is no reviewable question.
The judgment is affirmed.