
    MORRIS v. STATE.
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Oct. 18, 1911.)
    1. Criminal Law (§§ 1092, 1099) — Appeal-Time fob Taking — Statutory Provisions.
    Acts 31st Leg. (1st Ex. Sess.) e. 39, allowing 30 days after adjournment in which to file a statement of facts and bill of exceptions, does not apply to criminal cases in county courts, and a county court is without power to extend the time beyond the 20-day limit fixed by Acts 30th Leg. (1st Ex. Sess.) c. 7, and a statement of facts and bill of exceptions filed more than 20 days after the adjournment of court are too late.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Dec. Dig. §§ 1092, 1099.]
    2. Criminal Law (§ 1099) — Appeal— Statement of PaCTS.
    Under Acts 30th Leg. (1st Ex. Sess.) ce. 7, 24, and Acts 31st Leg. (1st Ex. Sess.) c. 39, prescribing the time and method of filing statements of facts and bills of exception, a statement of facts on appeal from criminal cases tried in the district court must be filed in duplicate, while in criminal cases tried in the county court the statement of facts need not be filed in duplicate, and must be copied in the transcript.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Dee. Dig. § 1099.]
    3. Criminal Law (§ 1144) — Appeal and Error — Presumption—Facts Not Shown by Record.
    Where the record contains neither statement of facts nor bills of exceptions, the court on appeal presumes that the trial court charged all the law applicable to the evidence.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 3032; Dee. Dig. § 1144.]
    Appeal from Hardeman County Court; W. S. Banister, Judge.
    Bob Morris was convicted of violating the local option law, and be appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Fires, Decker, Clarke & John, 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
    
   HARPER, J.

Appellant was prosecuted under complaint and information for selling intoxicating liquors in Hardeman county, a county where the local prohibition law is in force. He was convicted, and his punishment assessed at confinement in the county jail for 30 days and a fine of $50.

The Assistant Attorney General moves to strike out the statement of facts and bills of exception herein filed, because not approved and filed within the time permitted by law. The term of the county court at which appellant was tried adjourned on the 11th day of March, 1911. The statement of facts was not filed until the 17th day of April. The bills of exception were filed also on the 17th day of April, more than 20 days subsequent to the adjournment of court. The official stenographers’ act passed by the Thirty-First Legislature does not apply to criminal cases in county court, and the trial court is without power to extend the time beyond the limit fixed by chapter 7 of the Acts of the First Called Session of the Thirtieth Legislature. See Acts of 30th Leg. p. 446. The motion of the Assistant Attorney General is sustained.

We would again call attention to the difference in procedure, as provided by statute, in criminal cases of the grade of felony, tried in district court, where the official stenographers’ act provides for a stenographer, and also provides for an extension of time in those cases, and in misdemeanor cases tried in county court. By reference to the acts of the Thirtieth and Thirty-First Legislatures, it will be seen that no stenographer is contemplated in criminal cases in county court, and the law applicable to this class of cases was. not changed by the official stenographers’ act.

In criminal cases tried in district courts the statement of facts must be filed in duplicate, and the original sent to this court for its inspection. In criminal cases tried in county court the statement of facts need not be filed in duplicate, and must be copied in tbe transcript. We regret that, owing to this difference in procedure being provided by statute, parties desiring to appeal their cases in a number of instances have their statement of facts and bills of exception stricken out because perfected under the wrong statute. The Legislature in its wisdom adopted this difference in procedure, and this court is bound thereby. This question has been discussed in a number of reported cases, which are here referred to. Misso v. State, 135 S. W. 1173; Hooper v. State, 138 S. W. 396; Davis v. State, 138 S. W. 396; Looper v. State, 136 S. W. 791; Mosher v. State, 136 S. W. 467.

There being neither statement of facts nor bills of exception in the record, this court presumes that the trial court charged the law and all the law applicable to the evidence in the case, and the judgment is affirmed.

DAVIDSON, P. J., absent.  