
    SEARCY v. STATE.
    (No. 6323.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    June 8, 1921.)
    1. Criminal law <§=>1097(1) — Statement of facts in one case may not be referred to in lieu of preparation of statement of facts in another.
    It is insufficient that counsel for appellant state that there are other cases involving the same transaction in which a. statement of facts has been filed, and request consideration of same, for the statement of facts filed in one case cannot be considered in the disposition of another, and if the defendant was not able to pay the stenographer for the preparation of a statement of facts, the law provides for such emergency.
    2. Criminal law <§=31101, 1144(½, 13, 14) — In absence of statement of facts, only fundamental errors will be considered, and proceedings presumed regular.
    In the absence of a statement of facts, only fundamental errors will be considered by the Court of Criminal Appeals, and every presumption will be allowed in favor of the regularity of the conviction, the court’s charge, the sufficiency of the evidence, and the correctness of the court’s rulings.
    3.Criminal law <§=>1144(14) — In the absence of statement of facts, refusal of charges presumed correct.
    On an appeal from a conviction, it is impossible to determine whether the court committed error in refusing to give requested special charges, in the absence of a statement of facts, and, the rulings will be presumed correct.
    4. Indictment and information <§=333(3), 159 (I)— Signature of foreman not necessary to validity of indictment, which may be amended by attaching foreman’s name after fifing.
    It is not necessary to the validity of an indictment that the signature of the foreman appear thereon, and the same may be amended under the court’s direction by attaching the foreman’s- name after filing.
    5. Criminal law <§=3| 115(1) — Where bill of exceptions is silent as to status of original indictment, court not required to go beyond bill to determine if true copy was served.
    Where defendant appellant claimed he had not been served with a correct copy of the indictment filed, the copy not appearing to have been signed by the foreman of the grand jury, and his bill of exceptions not stating that the original indictment was so signed, but such copy of the indictment was' certified by the clerk as a true copy, the Court of Criminal Appeals will not go beyond the bill in finding whether the recitals in it were true or not.
    6. Criminal law <§=31097(3) — In absence of statement of facts, impossible to determine whether it was error to deny continuance for absence of a witness.
    In the absence of a statement of facts, it is impossible to tell on appeal whether the court committed error in refusing continuance, for the absence of a witness, for even though diligence may have been used in securing process, and the testimony might be material from the face of the application, yet in the light of the testimony given it might appear that no error was committed in refusing the continuance, anl the witness’ testimony might not affect the result.
    7. Criminal law <§=>! 144(12) — In absence of statement of facts, presumed that admission of testimony was proper.
    On appeal the court must presume that the trial court acted correctly in his rulings on the admission of testimony, unless it can be ascertained from the record that he was in error with reference thereto, and it is impossible to determine, in the absence of a statement of facts, whether the admission of • certain testimony over appellant’s objection was error.
    Appeal from District Court, Titus County; R. T. Wilkinson, Judge.
    John Searcy was convicted of robbery, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    I. N. Williams, of Mt. Pleasant, for appellant.
    R. H. Hamilton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   HAWKINS, J.

Appellant was convicted of robbery, and his punishment fixed at seven years in the penitentiary.

The record in this case contains no statement of facts. Counsel for appellant in Ms brief states tbere are other cases involving tMs same transaction in which statement of facts have been filed, and requests us to consider them in this case. We have had occasion heretofore to call attention to this practice, and to express our disapproval of the same. We cannot consider a statement of facts filed in one case in our disposition of another. If appellant was not able to pay the stenographer for the preparation of a statement of facts, the law has provided a way in wMch he may protect Mmself under such circumstances, and procure such services regardless of his ability to pay therefor; therefore tMs record will be treated in the absence of a statement of facts.

In the absence of a statement of facts only fundamental errors will be considered by this court, and every presumption will be allowed in favor of the regularity of the conviction, the court’s charge, the sufficiency of the evidence, and the correctness of the court’s rulings. Branch’s Anno. Penal Code, p. 309, § 602.

The transcript shows that appellant asked the court to submit to the jury three special charges, one of which was given, and two refused. It is impossible for tMs court to determine whether the court committed error in his refusal to give the charges asked and declined, in the absence of a statement of facts. We will presume that the court was correct in declining to give the ones marked “refused.”

When this case was called for trial, appellant, through his counsel, presented to the court a motion in which he claimed that he had not been served with a true and correct copy of the indictment filed against him, and that he had been confined in the county jail prior to and all the time since said indictment was filed, and attached to Ms motion what he said was a purported instrument or copy of the original indictment for the inspection of the court. He claimed that tMs copy was not a true and correct copy of the indictment. The copy of the indictment attached to his motion appears not to have been signed by the foreman of the grand jury; at least no signature appears in the copy. The bill of exceptions presenting this matter nowhere states in it that the original indictment on file was signed by the foreman, and therefore it is impossible for this court to know that there was any variance in this particular, or any other, from the copy served on appellant and the original indictment as it existed at that time. There seems to be attached to this copy a certificate from the clerk of the court to the effect that it was a true and correct copy of the original bill of indictment. It is not necessary to the validity of an indictment that the signature of the foreman appear thereon, and the same may be amended under the direction of the court by attacMng the foreman’s name after the same has been filed. - The bill of exceptions being silent as to the status of the original indictment, this court will not be required to go beyond the bill to find whether the recitals in it were true or not. We therefore hold that the bill presents no error.

Appellant also complained of the failure of the court to grant an application for a continuance because of the absence of one Olan Robertson. In the absence of a statement of facts, it is impossible for us to pass intelligently upon whether the court committed error in refusing this application or not. Even though diligence may have been used in securing process for the witness, and though his testimony might appear material from the face of the application, yet in the light of the testimony in the case it might appear that no error was committed by the court in refusing to grant the continuance. The evidence may have developed the fact that, even if the witness had been present and testified, his testimony would probably not be true, and would not likely change the result of the trial.

By bills of exceptions Nos. 3, 4, and 6 complaint is made as to the admission of certain testimony over the objection of appellant. The court is in the same trouble in attempting to pass intelligently upon these bills, in the absence of a statement of facts, as confronted it in passing upon the failure of the court to grant the requested continuance. ' It may have been that all of tMs testimony was admitted over appellant’s objection because pertinent as the facts developed upon the trial. It is our duty to presume that the court acted correctly in his rulings on the admission of testimony, unless we can ascertain from the record that he was in error with reference thereto, and it is impossible for us to determine this in the absence of a statement of facts.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. 
      C=3For other cases see «ame tonic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     