
    WILLIAMS v. STATE.
    (No. 3617.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    June 16, 1915.)
    Criminal Law <&wkey;1095, 1102 — Appeal — Statement of Facts — Bill of Exceptions —Delay in Filing.
    Under Act March 31, 1911 (Acts 32d Leg. c. 119) § 7, giving the parties to a suit 30 days after the adjournment of the term in which to prepare the statement of facts and bills of exception, and authorizing the court to extend the time, but not so as to delay the filing of the transcript within the time fixed by law, but, if the term may continue for more than 8 weeks, giving 30 days after the entry of final judgment to file the statement of facts and bills of exception, unless the court shall extend the time, a statement of facts and bills of exceptions in a criminal case, tried at a term which continued more than 8 weeks, which were not filed within the time fixed for the filing of the transcript after the motion for new trial was overruled, must be stricken.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 2847; Dec. Dig. <@=^1095, 1102.]
    Appeal from Criminal District Court, Harris County; C. W. Robinson, Judge.
    Solomon Williams was convicted of assault with intent to murder, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    John M. Cobb, of Houston, for appellant. C. C. McDonald, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PRENDERGAST, P. J.

This appeal is from a conviction for assault with intent to murder.

The term at which appellant was tried convened November 2, 1914, and adjourned January 30, 1915. Therefore the term of court, by law and as a matter of fact, continued more than 8 weeks. Appellant was tried and convicted on November 27, 1914. His motion for new trial was overruled December 12, 1014, at which time he gave notice of appeal to this court. The time for filing a statement of facts and bills of exceptions, under any contingency, expired 90 days after December 12th, which would be March 12, 1915. The bills of exceptions were filed May 1, 1915; the statement of facts, April 28, 1915. Therefore the Assistant Attorney General’s motion to strike them out must be sustained, both under the express provisions of the statute and the many and uniform decisions of this court. Section 7 of the Act of March 31, 1911, p. 266. It is needless to collate the many decisions so holding.

There being nothing that can be reviewed, in the absence of a statement of facts and bills of exceptions, the judgment is affirmed,  