Case Name: Tom Durham & Mrs. Harris v. State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1913-02-05
Citations: 69 Tex. Crim. 71
Docket Number: No. 2254
Parties: Tom Durham & Mrs. Harris v. State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 69
Pages: 71–76

Head Matter:
Tom Durham & Mrs. Harris v. State.
No. 2254.
Decided February 5, 1913.
Rehearing denied April 2, 1913.
1. —Fornication—Statement of Facts—Time of Filing.
Neither bills of exception nor statement of facts in County Court cases filed in the lower court after adjournment can be considered by this court unless an order is made during term time authorizing such filing. Following Hamilton v. State, 65 Texas Crim. Rep., 508.
2. —Same—Statutes Construed—Precedent.
The Act of May 14, 1907, p. 446, on the subject of filing statement of facts in the County Court in misdemeanor eases is still in force and is not changed by the enactments of the Revised Statutes of 1911, Civil or Criminal. Following Mosher v. State, 62 Texas Crim. Rep., 42.
3. —Same—Legislative Intent—Official Court Stenographer.
The Legislature has made a distinction between statement of facts and the filing of same where there is an official court stenographer and where there is not; and also in felony eases, where there is an official court stenog rapher, and in misdemeanor eases in the Count,'' Court where there is not such stenographer.
4. —Same—Statutes Construed—Independent Statement of Facts.
The Act of May 1, 1909, p. 374, provided that nothing in that Act shall be so construed as to prevent‘parties from preparing statement of facts on appeal independent of the transcript of the notes of the official shorthand reporter, and thus did not expressly repeal that part of the Act of 1907, p. 509.
5. —Same—Duty of Codifiers.
Under the Act of March 19, 1909, p. 130, the codifiers were simply authorized to adopt such of the Revised Statutes, Civil and Criminal, as had not been repealed or amended, and that they should not change the words or1 punctuations thereof except in cases of evident, clerical or typographical errors, etc.
6. —Same—Statutes Construed—Former Law—Repeal.
While the codifiers of the Civil Revised Statutes of 1911 copied the various sections of the various Acts, etc., including the Act of 1909, p. 374; yet, in the Act of 1911, adopting said Revised Statutes, the laws of that Session were not affected by the repealing clause of said Act, and by the Act of March 31, 1911, p. 264, of that Session, the Act of 1909, supra, which had been copied in said Revised Codes, Civil and Criminal, was expressly repealed, and the Act of May 14, 1907, supra, was in no way affected or repealed.
7. —Same—Rule of Construction—Repeal by Implication.
See opinion for a full discussion of the rules applicable with reference to the abrogation of particular legislation and repeal by implication, etc.
8. —Same—Case Stated—Statement of Facts—Filing in Misdemeanor Cases.
Neither the Revised Statutes, Civil and Criminal, nor the Act of March 31, 1911, p. 264, repeal or otherwise affect the Act of May 14, 1907, p. 446; and a statement of facts in a County Court misdemeanor ease must be filed within term time, unless an order of the court during term time is made authorizing it to be filed within twenty days after adjournment; and it must be filed within the time so allowed and which cannot be extended beyond twenty days. Following DeFriend v. State, 153 S. W. Rep., 881.
Appeal from the County Court of Potter. Tried below before the Hon. W. M. Jeter.
Appeal from a conviction of fornication; penalty, a fine of $50.
The opinion states the ease.
C. A. Wright, for appellant.
C. E. Lane, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.
On the question of filing statements of facts and bills of exception: Mosher v. State, 62 Texas Crim. Rep., 42; Chaney v. State, 62 id, 67; Griffin v. State, 62 id, 98; Looper v. State, 62 id, 96; Harwell v. State, 62 id, 117; Dilliard v. State, 62 id, 321; Davis v. State, 62 id, 537; Misso v. State, 61 id, 241.

Opinion:
PRENDERGAST, Judge.
Appellants were jointly charged, tried and convicted of fornication and each fined $50.
The term of court at which they were tried convened August 6, 1912, • and adjourned October 5, 1912. There is no order of the court below authorizing .the filing of the statement of facts or bills of exceptions after the adjournment of court. What appears to be a statement of facts and bills of exceptions were filed herein on October 18,1912, some fifteen days after the adjournment of the court.
The Assistant Attorney-General has made a motion to strike out the statement of facts and bills of exceptions, because not authorized to be filed by the court after adjournment. It has been the long and uniform holding of this court that neither bills of exception nor statement of facts in county court cases, filed in the court below after adjournment, can be considered by this court, unless an order is made during term time authorizing this. The motion of the Assistant Attorney-General is therefore granted. Hamilton v. State, 65 Tex. Crim. Rep., 508; 145 S. W. Rep., 348, and cases there cited.
Without a statement of facts and bills of exceptions none of the matters attempted to be raised by appellants in their motion for new trial can be considered. The judgment is, therefore, affirmed.
Affirmed.