Case Name: Catarino Herrera v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1915-03-24
Citations: 76 Tex. Crim. 361
Docket Number: No. 3484
Parties: Catarino Herrera v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 76
Pages: 361–363

Head Matter:
Catarino Herrera v. The State.
No. 3484.
Decided March 24, 1915.
Rehearing denied April 21, 1915.
1. —Desertion—Bill of Exceptions—Statement of Eacts.
Under the statute and the decisions construing it, in County Court cases, twenty days is the limit in which statement of facts and hills of exception may be filed. Following Clark v. State, recently decided.
2. —Same—Information—Complaint.
Where the information was filed alleging that the county attorney presented to the court that on or about a previous date to said filing of said information, defendant deserted his wife, etc., the same charged an offense prior to the presentment of the information, and it was not necessary that the information should make mention of the complaint. Following Johnson v. State, 17 Texas Crim. App., 230.
■ 3.—Same—Information and Complaint—General Demurrer.
A general demurrer that the complaint and information do not charge an offense (against the law was correctly overruled, as the pleading was sufficient.
Appeal from the County Court of El Paso. Tried below before the Hon. Albert S. Eylar.
Appeal from a conviction of desertion of defendant’s wife, etc.; penalty, a fine of $500 and one year imprisonment in the county jail.
Leaving out formal averments, the information and complaint charged that the defendant did then and there unlawfully, wilfully and without justification desert, neglect and refuse to provide for the support and maintenance of his wife, Mrs. C. Herrera, who is in destitute and necessitous circumstances, against the peace and dignity of the State.
W. D. Howe, for appellant.
On question of insufficiency of complaint and information: Kennedy v. State, 22 Texas Crim. App., 693; Tummins v. State, 18 id., 13; State v. Tandy, 41 Texas, 291.
G. 0. McDonald, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Opinion:
DAVIDSON, Judge.
Appellant was convicted under the statute which punishes a husband for deserting his wife and refusing to provide for her support and maintenance.
Several questions are suggested by bills of exception and in motion for new trial, but these can not be considered because they were all filed beyond the time authorized by law. The court adjourned on the 30th day of November; the bills of exception and statement of facts were not filed until the 26th day of December. An order was allowed granting thirty days in which to file these papers. Hnder the statute, and the decisions construing it, in County Court cases twenty days is the limit in which the evidence and hills of exceptions may be filed. These matters, therefore, can not be revised. Hnder the recent case of Clark v. State we think the information is sufficient.
The judgment will therefore be affirmed.
Affirmed.