Case Name: WHITEHEAD v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1914-06-24
Citations: 168 S.W. 530
Docket Number: No. 3188
Parties: WHITEHEAD v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 168
Pages: 530–530

Head Matter:
WHITEHEAD v. STATE.
(No. 3188.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
June 24, 1914.)
Criminal Law (§ 1099 ) — Bill of Exceptions — Statement of Facts — Filing — Time.
Where a statement of facts and bills of exception were not filed until nearly 90 days after adjournment of the court at which defendant was tried, they were subject to a motion to strike.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2866-28S0; Dec. Dig. § 1099. ]
Appeal from Sabine County Court; J. B. Lewis, Judge.
C. M. Whitehead was convicted of unlawfully cutting timber on the land of another, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
J. W. Minton, of Hemphill, for appellant. C. E. Lane, 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:
PRENDERGAST, P. J.
Appellant was convicted for unlawfully cutting timber on the land of another and fined $10.
What purports to be a statement of facts and bills of exceptions were not filed until nearly 90 days after the court at which appellant was tried adjourned. The state makes a motion to strike them out on that account, which is granted. Durham v. State, 155 S. W. 222; De Friend v. State, 153 S. W. 881; Stephens v. State, 158 S. W. 531, 532; Wilson v. State, 160 S. W. 454; Hampton v. State, 161 S. W. 966; Newsome v. State, 162 S. W. 891; and a great many other cases. There is no question raised which can be considered in the absence of a statement of facts.
The judgment is therefore affirmed.