
    Comy Lee v. The State.
    No. 1859.
    Decided June 5, 1912.
    1. —Local Option—Statement of Facts—Bills of Exception.
    Where the statement of facts was filed in the County Court, more than twenty days after the adjournment of the court, the same could not be considered on appeal; neither could the bills of exception.
    2. —Same—Order of Commissioners Court.
    In the absence of a statement of- facts, a bill of exceptions, even if filed in time, to the order of the Commissioners Court could not be considered on appeal; besides the same were admissible.
    Appeal from the County Court of Leon. Tried below before the Hon. W. D. Lacey.
    Appeal from a conviction of a violation of the local option law; penalty, a fine of $25 and twenty days confinement in the county jail.
    The opinion states the case.
    Ho brief on file for appellant.
    
      
      0. E. Lane, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.
   PRENDERGAST, Judge.

Appellant was indicted and convicted for illegally selling intoxicating liquors in a precinct of Leon 'County, a misdemeanor, after prohibition had been properly carried and put in force by the proper orders, publication, etc. He was fined $25 and twenty days in jail.

The term of court at which he was tried adjourned January 20, 1912. There is a purported statement of facts and one bill of exceptions in the record which shows to have been filed in the lower court on February 17, 1912, more than twenty days after the adjournment of the court. The State objects to the consideration of the statement of facts and bills of exception on that ground.

It has been uniformly held by this court that neither the hill or statement of facts can be considered by this court under such circumstances. Hamilton v. State, 64 Texas Crim. Rep., 175, 145 S. W. Rep., 348.

The only question sought to be raised is to the introduction in evidence of a certain order of the Commissioner’s Court of Leon County. Without a statement of facts, even if the bill had been filed in time, we could not review the question. However, even if we could pass upon it, in our opinion, the order was admissible and no error was committed by permitting it- to be introduced.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.  