
    GREENWOOD v. STATE.
    (No. 8926.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    May 6, 1925.)
    1. Criminal law <&wkey;>l099(6) — Statement of facts entitled to consideration on appeal, though approved by trial judge more than 30 days after judgment.
    Statement of facts approved by trial court within 90 days from adjournment, but more than 30 days after judgment, without order for extension beyond 30-day period, is entitled to consideration, in view of, Code Cr. Proc. 1911, art. 845, as amended by Laws 1911, c. 119, § 7 (Vernon’s Aun. Code Cr. Proc. 1916, art. 845), providing that statement of facts,' filed before time for filing transcript expires, should be considered as having been filed within time allowed.
    2. Criminal law <&wkey;>l092(7) — Bills of exception considered only when approved by trial judge within 30 days after final, judgment.
    Under Code Cr. Proc. 1911, art. 845, bills of exception, to which amendment of- 1911 does not apply, can be considered, where trial term continues more than 8 weeks, only where approved by trial court within 30 days after final judgment, in absence of grant of extension.
    3. Criminal law &wkey;1038(1) — Written objections to charge not shown to have been presented to trial court before main charge was read or argument begun not considered.
    Written objections to charge which were not shown to have been presented to trial court before main charge was read or argument begun will not be considered on appeal.
    4. Criminal law &wkey;829(I) — Refusal of special charge on subject covered in main charge not error.
    Refusal of special requested charge upon subject covered in main charge is not error.
    Appeal from Criminal District Court, Har-. ris County; C. W. Robinson, Judge.
    Tom Greenwood was convicted for conveying into jail an implement useful in aiding a prisoner to escape, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    H. H. Cooper, of Houston, for appellant.
    Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.
   HAWKINS, J.

Conviction, is for conveying into jail an implement useful in aiding a prisoner to escape. Punishment is 2 years in the penitentiary.

Our state’s attorney suggests that the statement of facts should not be considered because of delayed filing, relying upon Holden v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 267 S. W. 275. The trial term continued for more than 8 weeks. Sentence was pronounced on February 25th. This was the final judgment. Article 845, C. C. P., reads in part:

“Provided, if the term of said court may by law continue more than eight weeks, said statement of facts and bills of exception shall be filed within thirty days after final judgment shall be rendered, unless the court shall by order entered of record in said cause extend the time for filing such statement and hills of exception.”

There was no order of extension made. The thirty days expired March 27th. The statement of facts was not filed until March 28th.. and was approved by the trial judge on that date. Not having made an order of extension beyond the 30 days, and the statement of facts not being presented to him until after the 30 days expired, the judge might have declined to approve it, but, having given it his approval, can it be considered? The last sentence of article 845, C. O. P., was added by an amendment of the Legislature in 1911 (Laws 1911, c. 119, § 7 [Vernon’s Ann. Code Cr. Proc. 1916, art. 845]), and reads:

“Provided that any statement of facts filed before the time for filing the transcript in the appellate court expires, shall be considered as having been filed within time allowed by law for filing same.”

Where court extends for more than 8 weeks, the transcript is required to be filed in this court within 90 days from final judgment; if less than 8 weeks, within 90 days from adjournment. Under the provision last quoted the statement of facts in the present case, having been filed within 90 days after final judgment, is entitled to consideration, it having been approved by the trial judge, although the approval was after the 30 days allowed by statute. This is not true as to bills of exception, unless an order for extension was made, because the provision last quoted does not include bills of exception within its terms. The Holden Case (supra) has reference to bills of exception being filed too late, and not to statement of facts.

The prosecution was under article 329, P. C. Wé have examined the facts, and are of opinion they support the verdict and judgment.

There are some written objections to the charge, but there is no statement in it, nor notation on it, to the fact that they were presented to the trial court before the main charge was read, or the argument begun. It is requisite that this be shown. Salter v. State, 78 Tex. Cr. R. 325, 180 S. W. 691; Castleberry v. State, 88 Tex. Cr. R. 502, 228 S.W. 216; Edwards v. State, 91 Tex. Cr. R. 196, 237 S. W. 933; Rhodes v. State, 93 Tex. Cr. R. 574, 248 S. W. 679.

A special charge requested and refused was upon a subject which appears to have been covered in the main charge.

Finding no error in tlie record which justifies a reversal of the judgment, an affirmance is ordered. 
      <¡&wkey;For other eases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in ail Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     