Case Name: MANSFIELD v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1911-04-12
Citations: 138 S.W. 591
Docket Number: 
Parties: MANSFIELD v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 138
Pages: 591–593

Head Matter:
MANSFIELD v. STATE.
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
April 12, 1911.
On Motion for Rehearing, May 17, 1911. Rehearing Denied June 21, 1911.)
1. CRIMINAL Law (§ 1097 ) — Statement of Facts — Necessity.
Grounds of motion for new -trial based on the instructions cannot be considered without a statement of facts.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2926, 2934, 2938-2947; Dec. Dig. § 1097. ]
2. Criminal Law (§ 1099 ) — Appeal—Statement 03? Facts — Filing—Time.
A statement of facts will not be considered, where it was not filed within the time authorized by law and the delay is not excused.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 2S76; Dec. Dig. § 1099. ]
On Motion for Rehearing.
3. Criminal Law (§ 1099 ) — Appeal—Statement 03? Facts — Filing—Time.
A statement of facts will be considered on appeal, though' not filed within the time required by law, where the trial judge certifies that he caused the failure to file in time.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 2880; Dec. Dig. § 1099. ]
4. Criminal Law (§ 954 ) — Motion eor New Trial — Grounds—Stjeeiciency.
A ground for motion for new trial that “the court should have charged on manslaughter” is too general to present any error as to failure to so charge.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2363-2367; Dec. Dig. § 954. ]
5. Homicide (§ 49 ) — Manslaughter.
A homicide is not reduced to manslaughter on account of decedent’s insult to accused’s wife, where, after learning of the insult, accused met decedent before the killing and did not undertake to shoot him.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Homicide, Cent. Dig. § 73; Dec. Dig. § 49. ]
6. Homicide (§ 124 ) — Defense oe Property —Right to Rely Upon.
If accused placed money on a table and challenged decedent to take it to create an excuse for the killing, he cannot rely upon defense of property.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases; see Homicide, Cent. Dig. §§ 184r-188; Dec. Dig. § 124. ]
7. Criminal Law (§ 954 ) — Motion eor New TRIAL — SUFFICIENCY.
Objection, in a motion for new trial, that the court erred in not instructing upon accused’s rights to prevent decedent from taking accused’s money, is insufficient to present any question of accused’s right to act in defense of the property.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Dec. Dig. § 954. ]
8. Criminal Law (§ 954 ) — Motion eor New TriaIj — Grounds—Sufficiency.
An objection, in a motion for a new trial, that the charge as a whole is upon the weight of the evidence, is too general to be considered.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 2366; Dec. Dig. § 954. ]
9. Homicide (§ 253 ) — Evidence — Sufficiency.
Evidence held to support a conviction of murder in the first degree.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Homicide, Cent. Dig. §§ 523-532; Dec. Dig. § 253. ]
Appeal from District Court, Jefferson County; W. H. Pope, Judge.
Jack Mansfield, alias Elisha Mansfield, was convicted of murder in the first degree, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
B. E. Moore, for appellant.
C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
For other oases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
DAYIDSON, P. J.
Appellant was convicted of murder in the first degree, his punishment being assessed at confinement for life.
There are no bills of exception in the record, and the matters in the motion for a new trial cannot be considered without the statement of facts, as they pertain, to the charge given by the court.
The court met on the 2d of May and adjourned on the 17th of September. Appellant was sentenced on the 18th of May. The statement of facts was filed on the 10th of October, nearly 30 days after adjournment of the court/ Where the court continues eight weeks or longer, the statute requires the statement of facts to be filed within 30 days from the time of the final judgment, which is the sentence. Under this provision of the statute, the statement of facts should have been filed anyhow by the 19th of June, unless an order was granted extending the time. It was not so filed, nor was' it- filed until the 10th of October, following the adjourment of court on the 17th of September. This delay is not accounted for. The statement of facts as presented in this record cannot be considered, and without the evidence before us we cannot review the questions suggested for revision.
As this record presents the appeal to us, the judgment must be affirmed, and it is, accordingly, so ordered.