Case Name: R. E. Medford v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1915-01-27
Citations: 76 Tex. Crim. 250
Docket Number: No. 3397
Parties: R. E. Medford v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 76
Pages: 250–252

Head Matter:
R. E. Medford v. The State.
No. 3397.
Decided January 27, 1915.
Rehearing granted February 24, 1915.
1.—Assault to Murder—Statement of Facts.
Where the statement of facts was inadvertently omitted and not forwarded to this court, by no fault of appellant, the same will be considered on appeal.
8.—Same—Continuance—Diligence—Materiality of Testimony.
Where the application for continuance showed proper diligence and the materiality of the testimony, the same should have been granted, and was reversible error.
Appeal from the District Court of Fannin. Tried below before the Hon. Ben H. Denton.
Appeal from a conviction of assault with intent to murder and a conviction of aggravated assault; penalty, a fine of $100 and nine months confinement in the county jail.
The opinion states the ease.
J. W. Donaldson and Cunningham & McMahon, for appellant.
C. C. McDonald, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Opinion:
DAVIDSON, Judge.
This record is before us without a statement of facts. Under an indictment charging assault with intent to murder appellant was convicted of aggravated assault. In the absence of statement of facts appellant's assignment of error oh the refusal of the continuance can not be intelligently revised. The matters set forth in the motion for new trial are in the same condition. In order to intelligently review those matters the testimony would be necessary.
As the record is presented the judgment will be affirmed.
Affirmed.