
    CRUTCHER v. STATE.
    (No. 4062.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    May 10, 1916.
    Rehearing Denied June 7, 1916.)
    1. Criminal Law &wkey;1095, 1102 — Appeal-Review.
    Where the court ■ refused an extension of time at the end of 20 days after adjournment of court, .in which to file the bills of exceptions and statement of facts, the clerk’s action in filing the papers at a later date was without authority, and a motion to strike them out will be sustained.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 2847; Dec. Dig. <&wkey;1095, 1102.]
    2. False Pretenses <&wkey;26 — Indictment— Sueeicienct.
    In a prosecution for swindling, an indictment which alleged that false representations were made, by which two dollars in money was obtained, that the representations were false and fraudulently made to obtain the money, and that the accused knew the representations were false when made, was sufficient.
    [Ed. Note. — Por other cases, see False Pretenses, Cent. Dig. § 31; Dec. Dig. <@=326.]
    Appeal from Hays County Court; J.-R. Wilhelm, Judge.
    F. B. Crutcher was convicted of swindling, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    J. D. Moore, of Austin, for appellant. C. C. McDonald, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   HARDPER, J.

Appellant was convicted of swindling, and his punishment assessed at a fine of $10 and 15 minutes in the county jail.

The Assistant Attorney General moves to strike out the hills of exception and statement of facts because not filed within the time allowed by law. This being a misdemeanor, the court allowed 20 days after adjournment of court for the term in which to file the bills and a statement of the evidence. At the expiration of this time appellant asked for an extension of time, which was refused by the court; nevertheless the appellant had the clerk at a later date to file the papers any way. The clerk had no authority to file the papers under such circumstances, and the motion of the Assistant Attorney General must be sustained. Durham v. State, 69 Tex. Cr. R. 71, 155 S. W. 222; De Friend v. State, 69 Tex. Cr. R. 329, 153 S. W. 881.

There is a motion in the record to quash the indictment, alleging no specific ground, but stating generally that it charges no offense against the law. The indictment alleges that false representations were made, that $2 in money was obtained by said false representations, that the representations so made were false and fraudulently made to obtain the money, and that appellant knew the representations were false and fraudulent when made.

The judgment is affirmed. 
      cg=»For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     