Case Name: JOHNSON v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1913-01-08
Citations: 153 S.W. 849
Docket Number: 
Parties: JOHNSON v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 153
Pages: 849–850

Head Matter:
JOHNSON v. STATE.
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Jan. 8, 1913.
On Motion for Rehearing, Feb. 19, 1913.)
1. Criminal Law (§ 1090 ) — Appeal—Review — Bill op Exceptions — Statement op Pacts.
Rulings on evidence, alleged errors in a charge, and the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction cannot be reviewed, in the absence of a statement of facts or bills of exception.
[Ed. Note. — Por other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2653, 2789, 2803-2822, 2S25-2827, 2927, 2928, 2948, 3204; Dec. Dig. § 1090. ]
On Motion for Rehearing.
2. Coubts (§ 41 ) — Establishment—Time— Jubisdiction — Piling Papers.
Criminal district court No. 2 of Dallas county was created by. Act First-Called Session of the Thirty-Second Legislature (Acts 32d Leg. c. 19), which became a law 90 days after the adjournment of such special session on August 29, 1911. It provided that the court should hold four terms a year, beginning on the first Monday in April, July, October, and January, so that the first term of court which it was possible to hold under such act would begin on the first Monday of January, 1912. Sold, that the court nevertheless came into existence and had legal authority to acquire jurisdiction, so far as filing papers was concerned, by the 30th day of November, 1911; and hence an order made December 21, 1911, transferring an indictment and papers to that court, conferred jurisdiction, though it could not try the case until the succeeding January term.
[Ed. Note. — Por other cases, see Courts, Cent. Dig. §§ 162, 181-183; Dec. Dig. § 41. ]
Appeal from Criminal District Court, Dallas County; Barry Miller, Judge.
Fred Johnson was convicted of murder in the second degree, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
M. T. Lively, of Dallas and Lightfoot, Brady & Robertson, of Austin, 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 convict-
ed of murder in the second degree; his punishment being assessed at five years' confinement in the penitentiary.
Some of the grounds of the motion for new trial relate to the sufficiency of the evidence, which cannot be considered, because the statement of facts is not before the court. Another ground of the motion urges that the court erred in admitting and rejecting testimony. There being no bills of exception in the record, these matters cannot be considered. For the same reason, the alleged errors in the charge cannot be regarded as erroneous. The charge as given is such as could be applicable to a state of facts provable under the allegations in the indictment.
The judgment is ordered to be affirmed.