
    GUILE v. STATE.
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Jan. 24, 1912.
    On Motion for Rehearing, April 24, 1912.)
    1. Criminal Law (§ 1099) — Appeal—Statement of Pacts — Necessity.
    Where there is no statement of facts in the record on appeal, in a misdemeanor case prosecuted in the county court, but only a document which purports to be a statement of facts, but which is not copied nor certified in the record, it cannot be considered.
    [Ed. Note. — Por other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2862, 2864, 2926, 2934, 2938, 2939, 2941, 2942, 2947; Dec. Dig. § 1099.]
    2. Criminal Law (§ 1087) — Appeal—Record — Contents—Piling of Bill of Exceptions.
    Where the record does not show the filing of the bill of exceptions in the lower court, the bill cannot be considered.
    [Ed. Note. — Por other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2770-2781; 2794; Dec. Dig. § 1087.]
    On Motion for Rehearing.
    3. Criminal Law (§ 1099) — Appeal—Statement of Pacts — Time for Piling.
    A statement of facts in the record on appeal in a misdemeanor ease prosecuted in the county court, which, shows that it was agreed to and signed by the attorney for the state and the defendant, approved by the judge, and filed, all after the expiration of the 20 days allowed by law therefor, though within the limits of time granted by the court, does not authorize the court to consider it.
    [Ed. Note. — Por other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2866-2880; Dec. Dig. § 1099.]
    Appeal from Panola County Court; W. R. Anderson, Judge.
    J. C. Guill was convicted of aggravated as-* sault, and be appeals.
    Affirmed, and motion for rehearing overruled.
    Brooke & Woolworth, of Carthage, for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
    
      
       For other oases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep’r Indexes
    
   PRENDERGAST, J.

By correct complaint and information appellant was prosecuted, tried, and convicted for an aggravated assault and fined $50. The court at which he was tried convened on February 6, and adjourned February 25, 1911.

There is no statement of facts in the record. This was a misdemeanor ease prosecuted and tried in the county court. There is with the file in this court a separate document which purports to be a statement of facts. It is not copied nor certified in the record. The court below allowed 30 days after adjournment to file a statement of facts and bills of exceptions. Under the law only 20 days could be allowed. This purported statement of facts appears not to have been filed in the lower court until March 18, 1911, which was more than 20 days after adjournment.

There are in the record what purport to be several bills of exceptions. Neither of them shows to have been filed in the lower court. Under this state of facts, none of these matters can be considered. None of the questions attempted to be raised can be considered without a statement of facts. And none of the bills of exceptions could be considered, even if filed in the lower court, and within time, without a statement of facts. Misso v. State, 135 S. W. 1173; Blackshire v. State, 33 Tex. Cr. R. 160, 25 S. W. 771; Dement v. State, 39 Tex. Cr. R. 276, 45 S. W. 917; Williams v. State, 35 Tex. Cr. R. 391, 33 S. W. 1080; Irby v. State, 34 Tex. Cr. R. 283, 30 S. W. 221; Mosher v. State, 136 S. W. 467; Griffin v. State, 136 S. W. 778; Moore v. State, 136 S. W. 1067; Gentry v. State, 137 S. W. 696; Barfield v. State, 137 S. W. 920; Chaney v. State, 136 S. W. 482; Looper v. State, 136 S. W. 792; Farrell v. State, 141 S. W. 535.

The court gave a correct and apt charge on a state of facts that clearly could have been proven under .the complaint and information. The judgment will therefore be affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

At a former day of this term this cause was affirmed, as shown by the opinion then rendered.

Thereafter appellant made such a clear showing as to entitle him to a certiorari to perfect the record, which was done. It now appears that the bills of exceptions which the first record showed had not been filed at all were actually filed and in term time. A properly certified copy of the statement of facts now appears instead of the original, as was the case before. However, the statement of facts shows clearly that it was agreed to and signed by the attorneys for the state and the appellant, approved by the judge, and filed in tlie court below by the clerk,- all after the expiration of the 20 days allowed by law therefor. There is no such showing made as would authorize this court to consider it, being so prepared, approved, signed, and filed after the expiration of 20 days. Henderson v. State, 20 Tex. App. 304; Turner v. State, 22 Tex. App. 42, 2 S. W. 619; George v. State, 25 Tex. App. 229-2-42, 8 S. W. 25; Spencer v. State, 25 Tex. App. 585, 8 S. W. 648; Farris v. State, 26 Tex. App. 105-107, 9 S. W. 487; Suit v. State, 30 Tex. App. 319-320, 17 S. W. 458; Hess v. State, 30 Tex. App. 477-479, 17 S. W. 1099; Aistrop v. State, 31 Tex. Cr. R. 467, 20 S. W. 989; Bell v. State, 31 Tex. Cr. R. 521, 21 S. W. 259; Kutch v. State, 32 Tex. Cr. R. 184-186, 22 S. W. 594; Hutchins v. State, 33 Tex. Cr. R. 298-299, 26 S. W. 399; Bryant v. State, 35 Tex. Cr. R. 394-400, 33 S. W. 978, 36 S. W. 79; Childers v. State, 36 Tex. Cr. R. 128, 35 S. W. 980; Davis v. State, 24 S. W. 651; Ranirez v. State, 40 S. W. 278; Seidel v. State, 41 S. W. 607; Davis v. State, 39 Tex. Cr. R. 681, 47 S. W. 978; Dennis v. State, 41 Tex. Cr. R. 160, 53 S. W. 111; Bailey v. State, 53 S. W. 117. We might cite many other cases to the same effect, but we deem it unnecessary. We regret that in some instances adhering to the rules laid down and long established by these and many other cases works a hardship on the appellants. However, we feel constrained to follow these decisions. If we should do. otherwise, there would be no established rule applicable alike to all persons, but, instead, this court would be put in the attitude of showing favoritism.

Especially in misdemeanor cases it has so long been the uniform holding of this court that it cannot and will not review complaints of the action of the lower court in overruling motions for continuances, special charges requested, objections to the charge of the court, exceptions to the admission or exclusion of evidence, and such like matters, without a statement of facts, that it is unnecessary to cite any cases on that subject. None of the questions raised in this case can therefore be considered without a statement of the facts.

The motion will therefore be overruled.  