Case Name: FEENY v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1911-02-08
Citations: 138 S.W. 135
Docket Number: 
Parties: FEENY v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 138
Pages: 135–139

Head Matter:
FEENY v. STATE.
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Feb. 8, 1911.
On Motion for. Rehearing, June 14, 1911.)
1. Criminal Law (§ 1102 ) — Appeal—Statement of Facts — Filing.
A statement of facts on a criminal appeal will be stricken on motion when not filed within the time allowed therefor by the trial court, when failure to file in time is not excused.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Dec. Dig. § 1102. ]
2. Criminal Law (§ 1105 ) — Appeal—Record —Certification of Original Papers.
Original papers sent up with the record will not be considered on a criminal appeal unless certified by the clerk below as being the original papers used on the trial.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2887-2889; Dec. Dig. § 1105. ]
On Motion for Rehearing.
3. Forgery (§ 37 ) — Evidence—Admissibility.
In a trial for forging a check of a fictitious firm, the state could show that no such firm ever existed or was known in the county, especially since the check purported to be drawn for services rendered by accused.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Forgery, Dec. Dig. § 37. ]
4. Forgery (§ 48 ) — Instructions.
In a trial for forging a check of a fictitious firm, purported to be drawn for services rendered by accused, it was not error to refuse to submit a question of a claim of deposit for collection.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Forgery, Dec. Dig. § 48. ]
5. Forgery (§ 34 ) — Variance—Names:
The record of a forgery case should not be treated as presenting a variance because the charge was that the forged check purported to be signed by “R. C. Cameron & Son,” whereas a critical analysis of the signature shows “R. C. Camaon & Son,” or “R. C. Camnon & Son,” especially since the check was identified as the one accused passed, and he filed an affidavit incorporating the check with the name spelled “Cameron.”
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Forgery, Cent. Dig. §§ 95-100; Dec. Dig. § 34. ]
Appeal from District Court, Potter County ; J. N. Browning, Judge.
William H. Feeny was convicted of forgery, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
See, also, 58 Tex. Cr. R. 152, 124 S. W. 94A
Reeder & Graham, for appellant.
C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Die. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
DAVIDSON, P. J.
Appellant was convicted of forgery, his punishment being assessed at' three years' confinement in the penitentiary.
Motion is made by the Assistant Attorney General to strike out the statement of facts because not filed within the time allowed by the court under orders entered. The court adjourned on the 2d of April, 1910. The court held over eight weeks. The order allowing time after adjournment of the court to file statement of facts and hills of exception was entered on the 26th day of March, allowing 60 days' time in which appellant could prepare and file his bills of exception and statement of facts. Subsequently another order was granted extending the time to 80 days in which to file bills of exception and statement of facts. Under this order appellant had 80 days from the 26th day of March in which to file statement' of facts and bills of exception. The bills of exception and statement of facts were not filed until the 18th of June, which was about 83 days instead of 80 allowed by the court There is no reason shown in the record why the statement of facts was not filed within the time authorized. The order of the court included as well the bills of exception as it did the statement of facts. Under this showing of the record we are of opinion the motion of the Assistant Attorney General is well taken, and same will be sustained. As the record presents the case to ns, with the exceptions and evidence eliminated, there are no questions that can be reviewed or revised. The charges given by the court are applicable to a st'ate of case provable under the indictment. With the evidence eliminated, we are unable to say that the court erred in refusing the special requested instructions.
We find among the papers what purports to be the original instrument upon which the indictment was predicated. The record shows that there' was an order entered sending up the original papers, but those found in the record are not in any way verified by certificate of the clerk as being the original papers as used on the trial, nor is that instrument, supposedly the basis of the indictment, certified as such. In fact there is no certificate of the clerk verifying or certifying that these are the original papers. It has been the practice since State v. Morris, 43 Tex. 372, that all original papers sent up must be so sent independent of and not a part of the transcript and verified by the certificate of the clerk as such original papers, otherwise they cannot be considered. The same rule laid down by the Supreme Court in State v. Morris, supra, has been followed by this court in its decisions. Carroll v. State, 24 Tex. App. 313, 6 S. W. 42; Brewer v. State, 32 Tex. Cr. R. 74, 22 S. W. 41, 40 Am. St. Rep. 760; Kennedy v. State, 33 Tex. Cr. R. 183, 26 S. W. 78.
Under the condition of the record there are no questions which authorize a reversal of the judgment, and it is therefore affirmed.