Case Name: SARGENT v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1910-12-07
Citations: 133 S.W. 885
Docket Number: 
Parties: SARGENT v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 133
Pages: 885–887

Head Matter:
SARGENT v. STATE.
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Dec. 7, 1910.
On Motion for Rehearing, Jan. 18, 1911.)
1. Criminal Law (§§ 1092, 1099 ) — Appeai>-Record — Filing of Statements of Facts and Bill of Exceptions.
Though the indorsement on the statement of facts and bill of exceptions, “Filed September, 1909,” does not show that they were filed within 30 days of the adjournment of the trial court, August 21st, so as to entitle them to consideration, this may be aided by affidavit showing the time of filing.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Dec. Dig. §§ 1092, 1099. ]
2. Criminal Law (§ 1099 ) — Appeal—Statement of Facts — Failure to Approve.
One who, through no fault of his, is deprived of a statement of facts through omission of the trial judge to approve it, is entitled to a reversal.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 2866; Dec. Dig. § 1099. ]
3. Witnesses (§ 68 ) — Competency—Wife of Accused.
A wife is not a competent witness against her husband prosecuted for adultery.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Witnesses, Cent. Dig. §§ 159½ — 164; Dee. Dig. § 58. ]
Appeal from McLennan County Court; Tom L. McCullough, Judge.
Walter Sargent was convicted of adultery, and appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
R. L. Neal, for appellant. John A. Mobley, 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.
Motion is made by the Assistant Attorney General to strike out the statement of facts and bills of exception. An inspection of the record discloses that the county court adjourned on 21st of August, 1909. The statement of facts has this in-dorsement on same: "Filed September, 1909" —and has no approval of the county judge. Bills of exception Nos. 1 and 2 ana 3 are approved by the county judge, but are not filed —at least the record does not show any file mark upon them — and bill of exceptions No. 4 has the same indorsement as the statement of facts, to wit: "Filed September, 1909." As these matters are presented, we are of opinion the motion of the Assistant Attorney General is well taken. It ought to be shown that the statement of facts was filed within 30 days from the adjournment of the court. This occurred on 21st day of August, leaving about 8 or 9 days in that month, and 30 days in September. If the filing of these papers occurred after the expiration of 30 days, it would be too late, and only two of the papers, one bill of exceptions and the statement of facts, show to have been filed at all, and the statement of facts is not approved. These being eliminated, there is no question presented for review by this court.
Therefore the judgment is affirmed.