
    HUDNALL v. STATE.
    (No. 10948.)
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    June 15, 1927.
    1. Criminal law <5&wkey;1099(IO) — Statement of facts not approved by trial judge may not be considered, where record does not disclose trial judge's death, or reason for failure to approve (Rev. St. 1925, art. 2248).
    Court of Criminal Appeals cannot consider a statement of facts approved by a judge not the trial judge, where the record does not disclose the death of the trial judge, nor any reason for his failure to approve the statement of facts, since, under Rev. St. 1925, art. 2248, only the judge who tries a criminal case can approve the statement of facts, unless such judge dies before the time for approval or filing, in which event his successor may approve or file the statement of facts.
    2. Criminal law <&wkey;l097(l)— Bills of exception could not be considered, in absence of statement of facts.
    Court of Criminal Appeals could not consider bills of exception, in the absence of a statement of facts.
    Commissioners’ Decision.
    Appeal from Criminal District Court, Harris County; Wm. Masterson, Judge.
    I. B. Hudnall was convicted of murder, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    C. E. Smith, of Houston, for appellant.
    Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., and Robt. M. Lyles, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.
   BETHEA, J.

The appellant was convicted for the offense of murder, and his punishment assessed at 25 years in the penitentiary.

The case was tried before Hon. William Masterson, judge of the criminal district court of Harris county, and judgment rendered on December 31, 1926. The statement of facts was approved by Judge Whit Boyd on the 7th of February, 1927.

Under article 2248, Revised Civil Statutes 1925, only the judge who tries a criminal case is authorized to approve the statement of facts, except where the trial judge dies before' the time for said approval or filing, in which event the statement of facts may be approved or filed, by the deceased judge’s successor. The record does not disclose the death of the trial judge, nor is any reason shown why he did not approve the statement of facts. Eor this reason we cannot consider same.

In the absence of a statement of facts, we are unable to consider the four bills of exception in the record, which seem to have been approved by the trial judge. However, we have read the bills carefully, and find that bills of exception Nos. 1, 3, and 4, as qualified by the learned trial judge, present no error. We are unable to consider bill of exception No. 2, the only bill not qualified, for the reason that there is no statement of •facts which this court can consider. It is therefore impossible for us to appraise said bill without a statement of facts. Article 2248, Vernon’s Civil Statutes 1925, and annotations thereunder. Porter v. State (No. 10892) 294 S. W. 544, decided by this court on May 11, 1927, and authorities therein cited.

Finding no errors in the record, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM. The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals, and approved by the court. 
      <&wkey;For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in ail Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     