Case Name: DURHAM et al. v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1913-02-05
Citations: 155 S.W. 222
Docket Number: 
Parties: DURHAM et al. v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 155
Pages: 222–224

Head Matter:
DURHAM et al. v. STATE.
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Feb. 5, 1913.
On Motion for Rehearing, April 2, 1913.)
Cbiminal Daw (§ 1099 ) — Appeal — Statements op Fact — Time eob Filins.
On appeal in a misdemeanor case from a county court having no court stenographer, the statement of facts must be filed during the term unless an order of the court is made during the term authorizing it to be filed within 20 days after adjournment, in which case it must be filed within such 20 days, which time cannot be again extended, since the act of May 14,1907 (Acts 30th Leg. [1st Ex. Sess.] c. 7), prescribing the time in which statements of fact and bills of exception must be filed so far an it relates to county courts having no court stenographer, was not repealed by Rev. Civ. St. 1911, or Code Cr. Proc. 1911, arts. 845, 846, re-enacting Acts 31st Leg. (1st Ex. Sess.) c. 39_, §§ 7, 15, relative to the appointment of official stenographers and prescribing the time and method of making and filing statements of fact and bills of exception, nor by the act of March 31, 1911 (Acts 32d Leg. c. 119), with regard to the same matter, all of which apply only to courts having official stenographers.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2866-2880; Dec. Dig. § 1099.’ ]
Appeal from Potter County Court; W. M. Jeter, Judge.
Tom Durham and another were convicted of crime, and they appeal.
Affirmed.
C. A. Wright, of Amarillo, for appellants. 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, J.
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 15 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 exceptions 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, 145 S. W. 348, and cases there cited.
Without a statement of facts and bills of exception none of the matters attempted to be raised by appellants in their motion for new trial can be considered.
The judgment is therefore . affirmed.