Case Name: Walter Sargent v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1910-12-07
Citations: 61 Tex. Crim. 34
Docket Number: No. 872
Parties: Walter Sargent v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 61
Pages: 34–36

Head Matter:
Walter Sargent v. The State.
No. 872.
Decided December 7, 1910.
Rehearing Granted January 18, 1911.
1. —Adultery—Statement of Pacts—Practice on Appeal.'
Where the case was affirmed because the statement of facts and bills of exception had not been filed within thirty days from the adjournment of the court below, but it was shown by affidavit on motion for rehearing that it was no fault of appellant that the statement of facts and bills of exception had not been approved by the judge and filed by the clerk, but that his counsel had used proper diligence to obtain a statement of facts, etc., the case must be reversed.
2. —Same—Husband and Wife—Evidence.
It is the settled rule in this State, by an unbroken line of decisions, that in adultery the husband or wife of the party accused is not a competent witness against the other.
Appeal from the County Court of McLennan. Tried below before the Honorable Tom L. McCullough.
Appeal from a conviction of adultery; penalty, a fine of $250.
The opinion states the case.
R. L. Neal, for appellant.
—On the question of diligence in filing statement of facts and bill of exceptions and motion for continuance: Childer v. State, 13 S. W. Rep., 650; Golden v. State, 22 Texas Crim. App., 1; 2 S. W. Rep., 531; Clements v. State, 22 Texas Crim. App., 23; 2 S. W. Rep., 379.
C. E. Lane, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

Opinion:
DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.
—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 the 21st of August, 1909. The statement of facts has his endorsement on same: "Filed September, 1909," and has no approval of the county judge. Bills of exception Nos. 1, 2 and 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 endorsement 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 thirty days from the adjournment of the court. This occurred on the 21st day of August, leaving about eight or nine days in that month, and thirty days in September. If the filing of these papers occurred after the expiration of thirty 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.
Affirmed.