Case Name: MEDFORD v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1916-10-25
Citations: 189 S.W. 155
Docket Number: No. 4220
Parties: MEDFORD v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 189
Pages: 155–155

Head Matter:
MEDFORD v. STATE.
(No. 4220.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Oct. 25, 1916.)
1. Criminal Law <&wkey;1092(4) — Bra ox Exceptions — Time por Filing.
A bill of exceptions, filed more than SO days after accused’s motion for new trial lias been overruled and be has appealed, is too late.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2847, 2848, 2849, 2851; Dec. Dig. <®=3l092(4).]
2. Criminal Law i&wkey;1092(5), 1099(6) — Appeal — Record—Evidence on Motion poe Ne.w Trial.
In order to get the benefit of the evidence heard on motion for new trial, the statement of facts heard thereon, in the form either of statement of facts or contained in a bill, must be filed during the term at which the trial- occurred.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2847, 2877; Dec. Dig. <&wkey; 1092(5), 1099(6).]
Appeal from District Court, Fannin County; Ben H. Denton, Judge.
R. E. Medford was convicted of a simple assault, and appeals.
Affirmed.
See, also, 174 S. W. 607.
R. E. Medford, of Bonham, in pro. per. C. C. McDonald, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
PRENDERGAST, P. J.
Appellant was convicted of a simple assault, and fined $25.
The term of court at which he was convicted, as a matter of law, could continue longer than 8 weeks; and, as a matter of fact, did continue longer than 8 weeks. The court overruled his motion for a new trial on April 3,1916, at which time he gave notice of appeal to this court, which was duly entered. He has a bill of exceptions filed more than 30 days after this and some weeks after the term of court had adjourned, in which is contained what purports to be the evidence heard before the judge contesting the grounds of his motion for a new trial without any order allowing any time other than the statute allows, 30 days. His bill, therefore, cannot be considered by this court, as contended by the Assistant Attorney General, on two grounds: (1) That it was filed too late — more than 30 days after his motion for a new trial was overruled, and he appealed. (2) In order to get the benefit of the evidence heard on a motion for a new trial, it is necessary that the, statement of facts heard thereon, .whether in the form of a statement of facts or contained in a bill, must be filed during the term at which the trial occurred. See authorities collated in section 598, p. 307, Branch's An. P. C. This is the only bill in the record. There is no other question to discuss.
The judgment is affirmed.
(tesFor other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes