
    GIBSON v. STATE.
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    June 26, 1912.)
    1. Criminal Law (§ 1092) — Appeaj>-Bill of Exceptions — Filing—Time.
    Acts 32d Leg. c. 119, § 7, provides that, if the term of court may be continued more than 8 weeks, bills of exceptions shall be filed within 30 days after final judgment, unless further time is granted by an order entered of record. Held, that such section was mandatory, and that, where there was no order in the transcript extending the time, bills filed more than 30 days after the entry of final judgment could not be considered.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2803, 2829, 2834-2861, 2919; Dec: Dig. § 1092.*]
    
      2. Ceiminal Law (§ 940) —New Trial — Newly Discovered Evidence.
    In a prosecution for forging an order, newly discovered evidence that J. had been indicted a number of times in D. county for forgery, and that the order defendant was charged with having forged was made payable to him, was insufficient to entitle defendant to a new trial, in the absence of further showing that defendant received the order from J., or had ever met him, or showing any connection between him and the order in question.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2324-2327; Dec. Dig. § 940.]
    Appeal from Criminal District Court, Dallas County; Robt. B. Seay, Judge.
    D. Gibson was convicted 'of forgery, and be appeals.
    Affirmed.
    C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for tbe State.
    
      
      For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep’r Indexes
    
   HARPER, J.

Appellant was convicted of forgery, and bas appealed to tbis court, assigning several grounds in bis motion for new trial.

Tbe term of court at wbicb appellant was tried convened on tbe 1st day of January and adjourned on March 30tb, lasting more than 8 weeks. He was tried on February 14tb, and bis motion for new trial was overruled on March 16th, and sentence passed on him on that day. There is no order in tbe record extending tbe time in which to file bills of exceptions, and tbe only bill in tbe record was not approved nor filed within 30 days from tbe date of overruling tbe motion for new trial and sentence passed. Section 7, c. .119, Acts of tbe 32d Legislature, provides if tbe term of court may by law continue more than 8 weeks tbe bill of exceptions shall be filed within 30 days after final judgment shall be rendered, unless further time is granted by tbe court by an order entered of record. There being no order in tbe transcript extending tbe time, and the bill being filed more than 30 days after tbe date of entry of final judgment, we are not authorized to consider tbe bill. Counsel should carefully notice the provisions of tbis section of that law, because we are circumscribed and bound thereby, and it providing different rules, based on tbe length of tbe terms of court, one should be careful to bring himself within tbe rule prescribed.

Tbe court did not err in charging on tbe law of principals, under the., evidence in tbe case, and it is not attempted to point out any error in tbe charge, if any there be. Tbe evidence fully supports the verdict, when we take into consideration all the facts and circumstances in evidence, and tbe court gave a full and complete charge on circumstantial evidence.

The only other ground in tbe motion alleges newly discovered evidence. Tbe newly discovered evidence alleged is that Sam Jackson bad been indicted a number of times in Dallas county, charging him with forgery, and as tbis order that is alleged to be forged was payable to Sam Jackson, tbe fact that these indictments had been returned against him would be admissible on tbe issue of who forged tbe check in this case. As it is not alleged nor sought to be proven that appellant received bis order from Sam Jackson, or bad ever met tbe said Sam Jackson, who had been indicted in tbe other cases, such testimony would be of no aid to him in tbis ease. Had be alleged he received tbis order from tbe said Jackson, who had been indicted in tbe other eases, tbe bolding might be different. But as it is not sought to make any connection between that person and the order in this case, the evidence would not be material to any issue in tbis case.

Tbe judgment is affirmed.  