Case Name: TAYLOR v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1914-01-07
Citations: 164 S.W. 844
Docket Number: 
Parties: TAYLOR v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 164
Pages: 844–846

Head Matter:
TAYLOR v. STATE.
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Jan. 7, 1914.
On Motion for Rehearing, March 4, 1914.)
1. Criminal Law (§ 1099 )—Appeal and Error-Statement of Facts.
A purported statement of facts in the record on appeal, signed by the attorneys, but not approved by the judge, cannot be considered for want of such approval.
[Ed. Note.—For other eases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2866-2880; Dec. Dig. § 1099. ]
2. Criminal Law (§ 1097 )—Appeal and Error-Review in Absence of Statement of Facts.
In the absence of a statement of facts, the ruling of the court in refusing a continuance cannot be revised.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2862, 2864, 2926, 2934, 2938, 2939, 2941, 2942, 2947; Dec. Dig. § 1097. ]
On Motion for Rehearing.
3. Criminal Law (§ 596 )—Continuance— Absence of Witness.
In a homicide ease wherein defendant testified practically alone as to his claim of self-defense, it was error to refuse a continuance to procure the corroborative testimony of a disinterested witness for whom process was issued, and who was one of the parties immediately present.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 1328-1330; Dec. Dig. § 596. ]
Appeal from District Court, Rusk County; W. C. Buford, Judge.
Jim Taylor was convicted of manslaughter, and he appeals.
Reversed.
Futch & Tipps, of Henderson, 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
For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
DAVIDSON, J.
Appellant was convicted of manslaughter; his punishment being assessed at five years' confinement in the penitentiary.
There is a purported statement of facts in the record signed by the attorneys but not approved by the judge. The clerk certifies that it is a correct copy of the original statement of facts on file in his office. As the statement of facts is presented, it cannot be considered for want of the approval of the judge.
The other question raised in the motion for new trial is based on the failure of the court to grant an application for continuance. There was a bill of exceptions reserved to the ruling of the court refusing the continuance; but, in the absence of statement of facts, we are unable to revise the ruling of the court refusing to continue the case.
As the matter is presented, the judgment will be affirmed.