Case Name: Horace Kitchens v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1918-05-01
Citations: 83 Tex. Crim. 324
Docket Number: No. 4977
Parties: Horace Kitchens v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 83
Pages: 324–325

Head Matter:
MAY, 1918
Horace Kitchens v. The State.
No. 4977.
Decided May 1, 1918.
1. —Robbery—Statement of Pacts—Question and Answer.
Where the statement of facts was wholly in question and answer form, it must be stricken from -the record on motion of the State. Following Hargraves v. State, 53 Texas Crim. Rep., 147, and other cases.
2. —Same—Continuance—Evidence—Practice on Appeal.
In the absence of a statement of facts, bills of exception to t'he admission of certain testimony can not be considered on appeal.
Appeal from the District Court of Angelina. Tried, below before the Hon. L. D. Guinn.
Appeal from a conviction of robbery; penalty, five years imprisonment In the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case.
S. H. Townshend, for appellant.
E. B. Hendricks, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.
Cited cases in opinion.

Opinion:
PRENDERGAST, Judge.
Appellant was convicted of robbery and assessed the lowest punishment.
The statement of facts is wholly m question and answer form. The State has made a motion to strike it out and not consider it. Under the statutes and the many and uniform decisions of this court the State's motion must be granted. A great number of cases down to the present time could be cited but we deem it unnecessary. We here cite some of them: Hargrave v. State, 53 Texas Crim. Rep., 147; Essary v. State, 53 Texas Crim. Rep., 596; Baird v. State, 51 Texas Crim. Rep., 322; Brown v. State, 57 Texas Crim. Rep., 269; King v. State, 57 Texas Crim. Rep., 363; Kempner v. State, 57 Texas Crim. Rep., 355; Felder v. State, 59 Texas Crim. Rep., 144; Choate v. State, 59 Texas Crim Rep., 266; Hart v. State, 67 Texas Crim. Rep., 417; Criner v. State, 71 Texas Crim. Rep., 369; Stephens v. State, 77 Texas Crim. Rep., 30.
Appellant made a motion for a continuance and he has some very defective and incomplete bills to the admission of certain testimony. Hone of these matters can be considered in the absence of a statement of facts as has all the time been held by this court in a great number of decisions.
Hence, the judgment must be affirmed.
Affirmed.