
    SEIBERT v. STATE.
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    June 7, 1911.)
    1. Criminal Law (§ 1097) — Appeai^-Record —Statement oe Pacts.
    Questions relating to evidence presented in the trial court in the motion for new trial cannot be considered in the Court of Criminal Appeals, in the absence of a statement of facts.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2862-2947; Dec. Dig. § 1097.]
    2. Criminal Law (§ 1099) — Appeal—Record— Statement oe Facts.
    A statement of fact' approved and filed in the trial court about 25 days after the expiration of a second extension of time for its filing, without any showing of authority therefor, will not be considered on appeal.
    Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2866-2880; Dec. Dig. § 1099.]
    Appeal from District Court, Bexar County; Edward Dwyer, Judge.
    Bert Seibert was convicted of burglary, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
    
      
      For oilier cases see same topic ana section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep’r Indexes.
    
   DAVIDSON, P. J.

Appellant was convicted of burglary; his punishment being assessed at three years’ confinement in the penitentiary.

The record is before us without any bills of exception. The questions presented in the motion for new trial in the court below cannot be considered or reviewed in the absence of a statement of facts, as they all refer to the evidence. [2] There is a statement of facts filed with the transcript, but it was not approved until the 30th of Hay, and filed in this court on June 1st, the day after the case was submitted to this court for decision. The court adjourned on the 4th day of March, 1911, and the statement of facts was approved and filed in the trial court on the 30th day of May, 1911. There was sufficient extension of time to cover 60 days from the adjournment of the term of court at which appellant was tried. This extension of time would have expired on May 4, 1911, which was about 25 or 26 days before the statement of facts was filed. There is no authority accompanying this record in any way authorizing the filing of the statement of facts after the extension of the two orders of 30 days each, which covers the above-stated 60 days. The statement of facts, therefore, cannot be considered. In the absence of the evidence, the questions presented in the motion for new trial in the court below cannot be revised.

The judgment is affirmed.  