
    BECKER v. STATE.
    (No. 3533.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    May 5, 1915.)
    Criminal Raw <§=51092, 1099 — Appeal — Bills op Exception — Statement op Pacts —Time op Piling.
    Appellant was tried during a term of court which adjourned January 23, 1915. During the term no order was made authorizing the filing of a bill of exceptions or a statement of facts after term time. On February 12th appellant filed a bill of exceptions. On February 22d, in vacation, the court extended the time for filing a statement of facts for 30 days. The statement was not filed until March 29th. Meld, that the bill of exceptions and statement of facts could not be considered, because filed too late and without an order permitting it during term time.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2803, 2829, 2834-2861, 2866-2880, 2919; Dec. Dig. <§=>1092, 1099.]
    Appeal from Fayette County Court; George Willrich, Judge.
    Adolph Becker was convicted of simple assault, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    C. C. McDonald, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PRENDERGAST, P. J.

Upon an indictment, properly transferred to the county court, appellant was prosecuted and convicted of simple assault, with the lowest penalty assessed.

The term of court at which he was tried convened on January 4, and adjourned on January 23, 1915. During the term no order was made authorizing the filing of a statement of facts or bills of exceptions after term time. On February 12, 1915, appellant filed his only bill of exceptions. On February 22d, in vacation, the court, at appellant’s instance, entered an order extending the time 30 days longer from that date for the filing of a statement of facts. What purports to be a statement of facts was not filed until March 29,1915. The Assistant Attorney General moves this court to strike out and not consider said bill of exceptions and statement of facts, because filed too late and without any order permitting it during term time. Under the statute and the uniform decisions of this court, this motion must be sustained.

However, we might say that we have read both the bill and the statement of facts. Clearly, if we could consider the bill, as qualified by the court, it presents no error at all. The only question raised, so far as the statement of facts is concerned, is the claimed insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict. If we could consider it, it would show that the evidence amply sustains the verdict. So that, if we could consider either or both the bill and statement of facts, no error is presented.

The judgment is therefore affirmed.  