
    Ex parte LONG.
    (No. 3714.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Oct. 13, 1915.
    Rehearing Denied Nov. 3, 1915.)
    1. Habeas Corpus <®=»85 — Proceedings—Necessity oe Evidence.
    No evidence being offered to sustain the allegations of applicant for writ of habeas corpus, it must be presumed that the judgment committing him for contempt was correct.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Habeas Corpus, Cent. Dig. §§ 77, 78; Dec. Dig. i@^85J
    2. Habeas Corpus ®=^>113 — Statement of Facts.
    A transcript of the stenographer’s notes attached to an application for writ of habeas corpus, not being agreed to by the attorneys nor approved by the- judge as a statement of facts, cannot be considered as such.
    (Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Habeas Corpus, Cent. Dig. §§ 102-115; Dec. Dig. <S=3ll3.J
    Original habeas corpus proceeding by W. J. Dong.
    Applicant remanded to custody.
    T. C. Hutchings, of Mt. Pleasant, for applicant. C. O. McDonald, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PRENDERGAST, P. J.

In vacation Dong applied to one of the judges of this court for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that he was illegally restrained of his liberty, in that, in substance, the court required him, as a witness in the trial of a felony case against another, to answer certain questions “Yes” or “No,” when he claimed that he did not remember and could not so answer. The application was granted, and the cause set down for hearing by the court on the 6th inst. The sheriff, who had custody of Hong when the writ was granted, duly made his return thereon, showing that he held him in custody by virtue of a proper process and judgment of the district court of Titus county in three separate and distinct judgments at different times, copies of which judgments he attached, and which show that, in the trial of a felony case against Wert McGee in that court, Long was duly sworn as a witness for the state, and was properly asked by the state’s attorney if he had seen said McGee on the date that McGee was alleged to have sold him whisky; that he stated he did not remember, and then he was asked if he had bought any whisky from Wert McGee in said county on that date, and that he answered that he did not remember; that the jury was retired, and the court admonished him that he must answer the question “Yes” or “No,” and when the jury was brought back he was again asked the questions, and the court, in the judgment, stated:

“And the said witness refused to answer the said question and willfully evaded the same,” and “the court then and there heard other evidence as to the matter, and was and is now of the opinion that the said witness willfully and deliberately refused to answer the said questions, and was then and there and now is guilty of willful contempt of: court committed in the immediate presence of the court”

—and thereupon adjudged him guilty of contempt of court, and properly in the judgment ordered that he be punished therefor by confinement in the jail for three days and a fine of $100, and until he should pay the fine and costs.

No evidence whatever was offered or heard by this court to sustain applicant’s allegations for the writ of habeas corpus. It has been uniformly and many times held by this court that under the circumstances this court must presume, and will, and does, that the judgment of the lower court was correct. We cite only some of the cases. Ex parte Naill, 59 Tex. Cr. R. 140, 127 S. W. 1031; Ex parte Thomas, 65 Tex. Cr. R. 533, 145 S. W. 601; Ex parte Basham, 65 Tex. Cr. R. 537, 145 S. W. 619; Ex parte Northern, 63 Tex. Cr. R. 275, 140 S. W. 95.

There is attached to Long’s application for the writ of habeas corpus what purports to he a transcript of the stenographer’s notes of the testimony and the proceedings of the court at the respective times he was adjudged guilty of contempt and ordered confined and fined therein as stated. This stenographer’s transcript is in no way agreed to by any of the attorneys in the case, and is not approved in any way by the judge as a statement of facts in the matter. It cannot, therefore', be considered by us as such. However, we might say that we have read it, and, even if we could consider it, we think it does not sufficiently show that the orders of the judge were not authorized or wrong.

It is therefore ordered by this court that the said Long be remanded to the custody of the sheriff of Titus county, to be held by the sheriff in accordance with the several judgments of contempt against him. 
      cg^sFor other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     