
    Ex parte FOOTE.
    (No. 10941.)
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    May 4, 1927.
    1. Criminal law <&wkey;> 1090(1) — Whether court erred in refusing application for speedy trial or dismissal cannot be determined without statement of facts or bills of exception.
    In absence of statement of facts or bills of exception, appellate court cannot determine whether trial court erred in refusing application for speedy trial or dismissal of cause; presumption being that such action was proper.
    2. Criminal law <&wkey;>576(l I) — Habeas corpus &wkey;385(l) — Allegations in application or in petition for habeas corpus are not evidence, though duly verified.
    Allegations in application or petition for writ of habeas corpus are not evidence, and cannot bes considered as such, though duly verified.
    Commissioners’ Decision.
    Appeal from District Court, Jefferson County; J. D. Campbell, Judge.
    Application by J. M. Foote for a speedy trial or'dismissal of prosecution under indictment for accepting and offering to accept bribes. From a judgment refusing the application, the applicant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Howth, Adams & Hart, of Beaumont, for appellant.
    Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., and Robt. M. Lyles, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.
   BAKER, J.

This is an appeal from the refusal of an application filed by the appellant in the district court of Jefferson county, requesting that a speedy trial be granted him by setting a certain date for trial, and, in the event the state failed to agree to said date and give him a trial, then in the alternative appellant prayed that said cause be dismissed; it being alleged in said application that the appellant had been indicted by the grand jury of Jefferson county for accepting and offering to accept bribes while acting as deputy sheriff of said county as payment for the use of his influence in preventing prosecution of persons engaged in the illicit liquor traffic. The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception, and this court is therefore unable to determine whether or not the trial court committed error in passing upon the application. In the absence of a statement of facts, the presumption prevails in this court that the action of the trial court in refusing to grant said application was proper and that no error was committed. Tuckness v. State, 101 Tex. Cr. R. 483, 276 S. W. 277; Bridges v. State, 102 Tex. Cr. R. 462, 277 S. W. 1096; Carroll v. State, 104 Tex. Cr. R. 11, 282 S. W. 233; Ex parte Wright (No. 10906; Tex. Cr. App.) 294 S. W. 592, delivered April 27, 1927, yet [officially] unreported; Ex parte Bailey (No. 10927; Tex. Cr. App.) 294 S. W. 213, delivered April 27, 1927, yet [officially] unreported. The allegations in an application or petition for writ of habeas corpus are not evidence, and cannot be considered as such, although the same are duly verified. Ex parte Barnes, 73 Tex. Cr. R. 583, 166 S. W. 728, 51 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1155; Ex parte Clark, 82 Tex. Cr. R. 192, 198 S. W. 954; Ex parte Cain, 86 Tex. Cr. R. 509, 217 S. W. 386.

Finding no error 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. 
      <§s>Foi other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER, in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     