Case Name: DAVIS v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1914-06-10
Citations: 167 S.W. 1108
Docket Number: No. 3154
Parties: DAVIS v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 167
Pages: 1108–1109

Head Matter:
DAVIS v. STATE.
(No. 3154.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
June 10, 1914.
Rehearing Denied June 26, 1914.)
1. Criminal Law (§ 1090 ) — Review—Bills of Exceptions — Misdemeanors.
Bills of exceptions must have been reserved, that there may be a review of the admission of evidence, the charge, or the refusal of requested charges, in a misdemeanor case.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, §§ 2653, 2789, 2803-2822, 2825-2827, 2927, 2928, 2948, 3204; Dec. pig. § 1090. ]
2. Libel and Slander (§ 148 ) — Privilege.
Statement of defendant to L., the father of the wife of defendant B., when, B. having left his wife, L. went to defendant and asked him what was the matter, that she was unchaste before she was married was not privileged ; defendant being the originator of the false charge.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Libel and Slander, Cent. Dig. §§ 407-411; Dec. Dig. § 148. ]
3. Criminal Law (§ 1099 ) — Appeal—Statement of Facts — Filing—Diligence.
Appellant is chargeable with lack of diligence, where the statement of facts is not presented to the trial judge for his signature within the time allowed by law, though it was prepared and delivered to the state’s attorney in ample time, and through his neglect it was not seasonably filed.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§' 2866-2880; Dec. Dig. § 1099. ]
4. Clerks of Courts (§ 69 ) — Filing Papers —Date. '
The clerk of the trial court should place, on papers filed with him, the actual date of filing.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Clerks of Courts, Cent. Dig. § 97; Dec. Disj. § 69. ]
Appeal from Hill County Court; J. D. Stephenson, Judge.
Adam Davis was convicted of slander, and appeals.
Affirmed.
Wear & Frazier and V. L. Shurtleff, all of Hillsboro, and C. L. Black, of Austin, for appellant. . C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. (Jen., for the State.
For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
HARPER, J.
Appellant was prosecuted and convicted of slander; the information alleging that appellant did unlawfully, orally, falsely, maliciously, and wantonly impute to one Mrs. Jessie Davis a want of chastity, in that in the presence and hearing of W. H. Landrum falsely, maliciously, and wantonly say that Mrs. Jessie Davis was four months gone, meaning thereby that she was pregnant with child and had been for a period of four months, and by the language so used to the said W. H. Landrum that Mrs. Davis was unchaste and was not virtuous prior to her marriage to appellant's son, and that she had had carnal intercourse with a male person while she was unmarried.
This is a misdemeanor conviction, and no bills of exception were reserved to the introduction of testimony, to the charge of the court, nor to the failure of the court to give those of the special charges which were refused, and under such circumstances no question is properly presented for review. Basquez v. State, 56 Tex. Cr. R. 329, 119 S. W. 861. Appellant says, however, that, taking the record as a whole, it does not show' that the appellant has violated the laws of this state. The evidence shows that Ben Davis, a son of appellant, ran away with and married Jessie Landrum; that, after living with her about a month, he abandoned her, and she returned to the home of her father, W. H. Landrum. Landrum testifies that he then went to "appellant's house to see if he could not get the parties to go back together; that he asked him what was the matter, and he said, 'Xour daughter is four months gone.' " Appellant claims that, as Landrum went to see Davis and asked what caused the separation, Davis' answer would be privileged, regardless of what the answer might have been, and that no prosecution for slander could be based thereon. In this we do not think he is correct. The case he cites is where the slander was already in circulation, and the party goes to investigate the slander, and the person inquired of tells what he has heard, and that only, and of course, in that character of ease, no action will lie. But in this case the appellant does not claim to have heard any one so say, but charges the slander himself as a positive fact. In fact, the record would clearly indicate that he was the originator of the charge, for from no other source does it appear to have come, in the record before us. If one goes to another to inquire about a disagreement of any character, and the person originates a false and slanderous report as justification for his conduct, such language would be the basis for slander.
We have said this much because appellant complains, if we should not consider the statement of facts, an injustice would be done him through no fault or neglect of his own. It is made clear by the record and affidavits on file that the statement of facts was not filed until after the expiration of the time allowed by law, and for tbis reason there was delay in filing tbis transcript in tbis court. Appellant's attorneys claim that it was prepared in ample time and delivered to the state's attorney, and it was through the neglect of the prosecution that it was not filed in time. To this the prosecuting officer agrees. However, the law is if the attorneys do not agree on a statement of facts and present it to the judge for his signature within the time allowed, or they fail to agree, and the party appealing does not present to the judge a statement, he is lacking in diligence. There is no contention made in the affidavits that any statement of facts of any character was presented by appellant to the trial judge for his approval within the tíme allowed by law, and a failure to do so is chargeable to him. The clerk's letters and statements would indicate that at times some parties in Hill county have asked her to leave off the date when their papers are filed, and it has been done. This is improper, and the date of actual filing should be placed on each. It should not be antedated, nor the date left off, and we trust records will not be sent to us in that condition.
The judgment is affirmed.