
    JENKINS v. STATE.
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Nov. 29, 1911.)
    1. Criminal Law (§ 1099) — Appeal and Error-Statement oe Facts.
    A statement of facts which is not filed in the lower court and copied in the record by the clerk cannot be reviewed on a conviction for a misdemeanor.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2866-2880; Dec. Dig. § 1099.]
    2. Indictment and Information (§ 17) — Motion to Quash — Form.
    An indictment is sufficient as against an objection that it is mutilated, though it consists of two pieces of paper, pasted together,
    where one portion contains a printed form of the preliminary allegations, and the other, which is pasted securely thereto, contains the body of the charge in correct terms and in print, where there is no showing that its condition was caused by other than the grand jury presenting it.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Indictment and ^Information, Cent. Dig. § 89; Dec. Dig. §
    Appeal from Sabine County Court; T. R. Smith, Judge.
    Charles Jenkins was convicted of a violation of the prohibition law, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    J. H. McGown and Goodrich & Lewis, for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
    
      
       For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep'r Indexes
    
   PRENDERGAST, J.

The appellant was indicted for selling intoxicating liquors in violation of the prohibition law. He was tried in the county court, found guilty by the jury, and a fine of $20 and 20 days in jail assessed against him.

There is no statement of facts in the record. There is with the papers, however, what purports to be a statement of facts, separate from the record. This court has uniformly held that in county court misdemeanor cases the original statement of facts could not be sent up and filed in this court; that it must be filed in the lower court, and copied in the record by the clerk of that court. We cannot, therefore, consider this purported statement of facts. Even if we could, it shows that only one witness was introduced, and he clearly, if the jury believed him, established the guilt of the appellant.

The only question raised that we can consider in this case is the motion by the appellant to quash the indictment shown by his bill of exceptions. The grounds of the motion, in substance, claim that the indictment consisted of two instruments, pasted together; that is, that a separate piece of printed matter, cut from another and different instrument, was pasted on the face of the indictment, supposedly to be used and read as a part thereof, and that the indictment as presented is mutilated because of-this. By order of the court, the original indictment was sent up with the record in this case, properly authenticated. It shows on one piece of paper a printed form of the preliminary allegations in the indictment, and that when it comes to the body of the charge of the offense another correct charge of the offense in print is pasted securely in the face of the indictment and becomes a part thereof. There is no evidence that this was done by any other than the grand jury in having the indictment prepared, and presenting it properly in the court.

This ease is a companion case to the case of Jenkins v. State, 141 S. W. 222, exactly in tile same condition as this case, which was this day affirmed in an opinion by Davidson, P. J. The court did not err in not quashing the indictment, and the judgment will be affirmed.  