Case Name: M. B. Patterson v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1905-05-31
Citations: 48 Tex. Crim. 322
Docket Number: No. 2989
Parties: M. B. Patterson v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 48
Pages: 322–323

Head Matter:
M. B. Patterson v. The State.
No. 2989.
Decided May 31, 1905.
1. —Obstructing Public Bead—Information.
See information held to be sufficient in a prosecution for obstructing a public road, on motion to quash.
2. —Same—Statement of Facts.
Where the term of the court adjourned on August 11, 1904, and the statement of facts was filed August 20, 1904, and there was no order allowing such filing, the same cannot be considered.
Appeal from the County “Court of Coke. Tried below before Hon. G. W. Perryman.
Appeal from a conviction of obstructing a public road; penalty, a fine of $25.
The information was as follows: “In the name and by the authority of the State of Texas: W. F. Robinson county attorney of the County of Coke, State aforesaid, in behalf of said State presents in county court of said county at the August term 1904 of said court that M. B. Patterson on or about the 10th day of May A. D. one thousand nine hundred and four and before the filing of this complaint, in the County of Coke and State of Texas did then and there unlawfully and wilfully obstruct and injure a certain public road and highway to,wit: the public road leading from Robert Lee to Ft. Chadbourne by then and there erecting and building a fence across said road on section Ho. 1 of said road in road precinct Ho. 1 in said county and State against the peace and dignity of the State. W. F. Robinson, county attorney of Coke County said State. The complaint is the same in substance as the information. The objection was to the description of the road as being insufficient, because in point of fact there were two roads between the alleged points and the information did not set out the particular road.
No brief has reached the reporter.
Howard Martin, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

Opinion:
BROOKS, Judge.
Appellant was convicted of obstructing a public road, and appeals. He filed a motion to quash the complaint and information. The court did not err in overruling this motion, as the complaint and information are in proper form.
The record is rather voluminous, but the statement of facts cannot be considered as it was filed after the adjournment of the term and there-is no order allowing such filing. The term adjourned on August 11, 1904, and the statement of facts was filed on August 20, 1904. In the absence of the facts .this court cannot review the various requested charges and bills of exception and determine whether or not any injury was done to appellant.
Ho reversible error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.