
    WILDER v. STATE.
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Jan. 8, 1913.)
    1. CRIMINAL Law (§ 1099) — Appeal—Statement ox Pacts — Time ox Piling.
    A statement of facts filed after adjournment cannot be considered, where there was no record of an' order allowing 20 days in which to do so, nor, if there were such an order, where the abatement was filed 22 days after adjournment.
    [Ed. Note. — Por other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2866-2880; Dec. Dig. § 1099.]
    2. Bail (§ 65) — Form—Statement ox Punishment.
    A recognizance, which does not state the punishment except that it was not under $100', is not sufficient where the fine fixed by the jury was exactly $100; the statute requiring that the punishment found by the jury must be stated.
    [Ed. Note. — Por other cases, see Bail, Cent. Dig. § 285; Dec. Dig. § 65.]
    3. Criminal Law (§ 1124) — Appeal—Record — ‘Grounds op Motion — Evidence.
    A ground of a motion for new trial that the court erred in refusing to submit special instructions cannot be considered in the absence of the evidence.
    [Ed. Note. — Por other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2946-2948; Dec. Dig. § 1124.]
    Appeal from Leon County Court; W. D. Lacey, Judge.
    Prank Wilder was convicted of unlawfully carrying a pistol, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    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
    
   DAVIDSON, P. J.

Appellant was convicted of unlawfully carrying a pistol; his punishment being assessed at a fine of $100.

The statement of facts cannot be considered for two reasons: First, there was no order entered of record allowing 20 days after adjournment of court in which to file statement of facts. The case is a misdemean- or, tried in the county court. The second reason is, if there had been an order, the court adjourned 22 days before the statement of facts was filed. For these reasons the statement of facts is not in condition to be entertained on appeal.

It is very doubtful whether the recognizance is sufficient on account of its peculiar verbiage, inasmuch as it does not state the punishment. It does state, however, that defendant was fined not less than 8100. The verdict of the jury and judgment of the court based thereon fixes the punishment at exactly $100. We are of opinion, if it was necessary to decide that question, that the recognizance is not sufficient. The statute requires that the punishment found by the jury must be stated. The jury assessed the punishment at a fine of $100.

The first ground of the niotion contends that there was material error committed by the court in refusing to submit defendant’s special instructions. This cannot be eonsid-ered in the absence of the evidence. The other grounds relate to the sufficiency of the evidence, and cannot be considered for the same reason.

The judgment is affirmed.  