
    WHITFILL v. STATE.
    (No. 11374.)
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Oct. 19, 1927.
    Rehearing Denied Nov. 16, 1927.
    Criminal law <&wkey;l099(!) — Appellate court cannot compel clerk to file statement of facts for accused on mere showing that accused employed attorney, who subsequently left state.
    ' Appellate court cannot issue writ of certio-rari to compel clerk to file statement of facts for purposes of appeal by accused, on showing that accused employed an attorney and paid him a fee and that the attorney has left the state; appellate court not being authorized to compel filing of statement of facts on mere showing that accused’s attorney is guilty of negligence or laches in representing accused.
    Appeal from District Court, Lubbock County ; Clark M. Mullican, Judge.
    J. W. Whitfill was convicted for possessing equipment, material, and a still for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor, and he appeals, and applies for certiorari to compel clerk to file a statement of facts.
    Affirmed, and application denied.
    H. R. Bishop, of Panhandle, and J. A. Car-lisle, of Sherman, for appellant.
    Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., and Robt. M. Lyles, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.
   LATTIMORE, J.

Conviction for possessing equipment, material, and a still for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor; punishment, five years in the penitentiary.

The record is before us without any statement of facts. There are two bills of exception, neither of which presents a complaint which can be considered, in the absence of a statement of facts. The indictment herein charges an offense under the law, and the charge of the court correctly presents the law of the ease.

No error appearing, the judgment will be affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

Appellant files his motion for rehearing, setting up only that, if he had his statement of facts properly before the court, it would be evident that certain testimony should liave been rejected, wbieb be claims was improperly admitted, and in tbis connection be asks for a writ of certiorari to compel tbe clerk to file a statement of facts. There is no showing in tbe record upon which we would be justified in issuing any such writ. Appellant sets up that be employed an attorney and paid him a fee, and that said attorney has since left tbe state. We have no rule in tbis court that would authorize us to compel tbe filing of statements of facts for men whose only showing is that their attorneys are guilty of negligence or laches in representing them.

The application for certiorari will be denied, and the motion for rehearing overruled. 
      other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     