
    Mary Jones v. The State.
    No. 4092.
    Decided May 31, 1916.
    Murder — Bills of Exception.
    Where the court continued longer than eight weeks in session and appellant did not file his bills of exception within thirty days after notice of appeal, and. no additional time was granted, the same could not be considered on appeal; however, if considered, there was no reversible error.
    
      Appeal from the Criminal District Court of Dallas. Tried below before the Hon. Bobert B. Seay.
    Appeal from a conviction of murder; penalty, seven years imprisonment in the penitentiary.
    The opinion states the case.
    No brief on file for appellant.
    
      C. C. McDonald, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.
    On question of not filing bills of exception in time: Gibson v. State, 148 S. W. Rep., 1090; Gaines v. State, 150 S. W. Rep., 199; Boberts v. State, 157 S. W. Rep., 1193.
   PRENDERGAST, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was convicted of murder, and her punishment assessed at seven years in the penitentiary.

The term of court at which she was convicted by law could, 'and as a matter of fact did, continue longer than eight weeks. The court overruled her motion for a new trial on February 12, 1916, at which time she gave proper notice, which was duly entered, of appeal to this court, and at that time she was duly sentenced. Ho order was made allowing any time for filing bills of exception. The law gave appellant only thirty days from the overruling of the motion for new trial1 and sentence to file bills of exception. In order to enable her-to file .them later, she must procure, and the court must enter, an order allowing such additional time. The Assistant Attorney General’s motion to strike out and not consider the bills of exceptions because filed too late must, therefore, be sustained.

She has three bills. We have examined them, notwithstanding they were filed too late; and as qualified by the judge, even if we could consider them, they present no error.

The only other question is, she claims the testimony was insufficient to sustain the conviction. We have carefully studied the evidence and are of the opinion that her contention can not be sustained. We think the evidence was sufficient. So the court and jury below both found. We would not be justified, therefore, in setting aside the verdict.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.  