
    Young v. The State.
    
      Grime.
    
    (Decided June 17, 1913.
    62 South. 1014.)
    
      Bill of Exceptions; Filing; Time. — Where a judgment was entered in a criminal case on November 12, 1912, and the bill of exceptions was not presented to'the trial judge until February 12, 1913, the presentation was not within the 90 days as required by section 3019, Code 1907, and hence, the bill will be stricken on motion as not having been filed with the trial judge in the time allowed by law.
    Appeal from Houston Circuit Court.
    Heard before Hou. H. A. Pearce.
    Emanuel Young was convicted of an offense and he appeals. Submitted on motion to strike bill of exceptions, and on the merits.
    Motion to strike bill of exceptions granted and cause affirmed.
    E. H. Hill, for appellant.
    Counsel discusses the case on its merits, but in view of the opinion, it is not deemed necessary to here set it out.
    
      R. C. Brickell, Attorney General, and W. L. Martin, Assistant Attorney general, for the State.
    The bill of exceptions was not filed with the trial judge until the 92d day from the date of the judgment, and hence, Avas not filed Aidthin the time required.by laiv, and should be stricken. — -Sec. 3019, Code 1907. There is no error of record, and the canse should be affirmed.
   THOMAS, J.

— This case is submitted on the merits, and on the motion of the Attorney General to strike the bill of exceptions. The motion must prevail, since it appears that the bill of exceptions was not presented to or filed with the trial judge Avithin 90 days from the day on which the judgment was entered; the judgment having been entered on November 12, 1912, and the bill presented to the trial judge on February 12, 1913, 92 days thereafter. — Code, § 3019.

We have examined the record proper, and find no errors therein. The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Affirmed.  