
    CISNEROS v. STATE.
    (No. 9483.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Nov. 11, 1925.)
    1. Criminal law <&wkey;4169(2) — 'Where offense definitely established, error in receiving testimony held harmless.
    Where offense of carrying pistol was definitely established, any error in receiving testimony as to injury of bystander by discharge of pistols held harmless, especially where jury was instructed to disregard testimony.
    2. Criminal law &wkey;>649 (I) — .Refusal to grant accused's counsel more time to prepare charge held not error.
    Where evidence was meager, and none was introduced by accused, refusal to grant accused’s counsel more time to prepare charge held not error.
    3. Indictment and information <&wkey; 159(1) — Discrepancy in file number of indictment in county court and its file number in district court may be cured by amendment.
    Discrepancy in file number of indictment in county court and its file number in district court, to which it was transferred, may be cured by amendment.
    4. Indictment and information &wkey;>II(2) — That number of case in county court differed from its number in district court held not to affect validity of indictment.
    That case had been filed in county court under different number than that given it in district court, to which it was transferred, was not discrepancy in file number affecting validity of indictment.
    5. Criminal law <&wkey;I0l(4) — Certificate of transfer held sufficiently to show filing of indictment in district court.
    Certificate of transfer of case from county to district court held sufficiently to show filing of indictment in district court.
    Appeal from Willacy County Court; W. H. Mead, Judge.
    Francisco Cisneros was convicted of unlawfully carrying a pistol, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Decker & Robinson, of Raymondville, for appellant.
    Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., of Green-ville, and Nat Gentry, Jr., Asst. State’s Atty., of Tyler, for the State.
   MORROW, P. J.

The offense is the unlawful carrying of a pistol; punishment fixed at a fine of $100.

Appellant complains of the receipt of testimony, to the effect that, while there was a general discharge of the pistols, one of the bystanders was wounded. The meagerness of the recital of the facts in the bill renders it impossible for us to determine whether the testimony was relevant or not. Even'if irrelevant, however, the offense being definitely established, and the minimum penalty assessed, the error, if any was committed in receiving the testimony, would not justify a reversal. It appears, moreover, that the jury was instructed to disregard the testimony mentioned.

Complaint is also made of the failure of the court to accord the appellant’s counsel sufficient time to prepare a charge. The only charge given to the jury was that prepared by the appellant’s counsel, instructing them to disregard the testimony above mentioned. The evidence is very short. • No testimony was adduced by the appellant. Two witnesses, testified that he was seen with a pistol under circumstances violative of the law. Nothing in the bill discloses the necessity of greater time than was allowed for the preparation of a written charge.

Appellant, by plea to the jurisdiction, attacks the indictment. There is a certificate of transfer, the caption of which is- as follows:

'‘The State of Texas v. Francisco Cisneros. No. 49. Bxtfact — Minutes of District Court. Willacy County, Texas. January ?4, A. D. 1925.”

This is followed by the certificate, from which we quote as follows:

“Court met pursuant to recess of yesterday. Present as of yesterday, whereupon the following -proceedings were had, to wit:
“On this day the grand jury came into open court, a quorum being present, and through its foreman presented into court the following true bills, to wit: * * * One indictment, State of Texas v. Francisco Cisneros, which was received by the court and ordered filed and docketed.
“ ‘No. 40. January 26, 1925.
“ ‘State of Texas v. Francisco Cisneros.
“ ‘Transferred from County Court. Willacy County.’
“The State of Texas, County of Willacy.
“I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct statement of the proceedings in criminal district court, together with indictment hereto attached, in the above styled and numbered cause.
“Given under my hand and seal, at office, this the 3d day of February, A. D., 1925. Ben S. Duffield, District Clerk, Willacy County, Tex. [Seal.]”
Following the certificate is this indorsement:
Indorsed: “No 49. In County Court, Wil-lacy County, Tex. State of Texás v. Francisco Cisneros. Transcript and Presentment of Indictment from Dist. Court.”

Other proceedings show that the file num-* her in the county court was 49. The plea to the jurisdiction is based upon the proposition that there is a discrepancy in the file number. If, in fact, there was a discrepancy in the file mark, an amendment would have been in order. See Caldwell v. State, 5 Tex. 18; De Olles v. State, 20 Tex. App. 145; Boren v. State, 32 Tex. Cr. R. 637, 25 S. W. 775; Rippey v. State, 29 Tex. App. 37, 14 S. W. 448; Skinner v. State, 64 Tex. Cr. R. 84, 141 S. W. 231; Rhodes v. State, 29 Tex. 188, and other cases collated in Vernon’s Tex. Crim. Stat. vol. 2, p. 190. Judging from the record before us, it is conceived that no such discrepancy appears. The number of the case in the district court seems to have been 40; that in the county court, 49.

Exceptions were urged against the indictment upon the ground that it did not appear to have been filed in the criminal district court. The certificate which we have quoted is sufficient to show that it was filed in the district court. In overruling the motion and- exceptions, it is our opinion that no error was committed.

We fail to perceive any harmful error in the record.

The judgment is therefore affirmed. 
      <g=^For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     