Case Name: Henry Moss v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1898-01-26
Citations: 39 Tex. Crim. 3
Docket Number: No. 1487
Parties: Henry Moss v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 39
Pages: 3–5

Head Matter:
Henry Moss v. The State.
No. 1487.
Decided January 26, 1898.
Motion for Rehearing Decided March 2, 1898.
1. Bill of Exceptions—Practice on Appeal.
Bill of exceptions not approved by the trial judge will not be considered on appeal.
2. Charge of Court—Absence of Statement of Facts.
In the absence of a statement of facts, the correctness of the charge of the court complained of in the motion for new trial can not be considered.
3. Information—Changing File Mark on.
A simple statement in the motion for new trial, that the file mark upon the information had been changed, is entitled to no consideration where the attending circumstances are not stated, and there is no evidence of such change.
ON MOTION FOB REHEARING.
4. Motion for Rehearing as to Statement of Facts—Practice.
A motion for rehearing, asserting as a fact that there was on file in the lower court a statement of facts which had been approved by the judge, but which motion is neither sworn to nor accompanied by a certified copy of said statement of facts, can not be considered.
Appeal from the County Court of Johnson. Tried below before Hon. F. E. Adams, County Judge.
Appeal from a conviction for a violation of local option; penalty, a fine of $25 and twenty days imprisonment in the county jail.
Ho statement of facts in the record.
Bledsoe & Bledsoe, for appellant.
Mann Trice, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

Opinion:
DAVIDSON, Judge.
Conviction for violating the local option law. What purport to be two bills of exception appear in the record, but neither is approved by the trial judge, and therefore they can not be considered. The statement of facts is not incorporated in the record. In the absence of the statement of facts, the grounds of the motion for a new trial, wherein it is contended that the court erred in his instruction to the jury, can not be considered. Nor is there any evidence before us that the file mark on the information has been changed from the 5th of February to the 5th of March. It is simply stated as a ground of the motion for a new trial, as well as a ground of the motion to quash. Without the attending circumstances as to the change of the file mark, if such change was made, we can not undertake to revise the action of the court in that regard; but there is no evidence before us of any such change. No errors appearing, the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.