
    JOHNSON v. STATE.
    (No. 10271.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    June 25, 1926.
    Rehearing Denied Oct. 20, 1926.)
    1. Criminal law &wkey;>!092(7), 1099(6);
    Statements of fact and bills of exception, filed more than 90 days after notice of appeal is given, cannot be considered (Code Cr. Proc. 1925, art. 760).
    On Motion for Rehearing.
    2. Criminal law &wkey;>1097(3, 5).
    Alleged errors in charging jury and passing on motion for continuance cannot be considered on appeal, in absence of statement of facts.
    Commissioners’ Decision.
    Appeal from District Court, Titus County; R. T. Wilkinson, Judge.
    Melvin Johnson was convicted of the unlawful transportation of intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    I. N. Williams, of Mt. Pleasant, and B. B. Sturgeon, of Paris, for appellant.
    Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., of Austin, and Robt. M. Lyles, Asst. State’s Atty., of Groesbeck, for the State.
   BAKER, J.

The appellant was convicted in the district court of Titus county for unlawfully transporting intoxicating liquor, and his punishment assessed at one year in the penitentiary.

The record discloses that the appellant’s motion for a new trial was overruled, and his notice of appeal to this court was given on January 19, 1926, and that at said time the court granted him 90 days after the adjournment of said term of court within which to file his statement of facts and bills of exception. The statement of facts and bills of exception were filed on April 30, 1926, more than 90 days after the notice of appeal was given, which was too late for this court to consider same. Under article 760, O. O. P., statements of fact and bills of exception, filed more than 90 days after notice of appeal is given, cannot be considered by this court See Bailey v. State (Tex. Or. App.) 282 S. W. 804. There are many other opinions Jo the same effect, yet unreported, delivered recently by this court.

With the statement of facts and bills of exception thus eliminated, there are no other questions raised in the record for our consideration.

Binding no error in the record, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court.

On Motion for Rehearing.

MORROW, P. J.

[2] Appellant’s motion for rehearing is based upon alleged errors of the trial court in charging the jury and in passing upon the motion for a continuance. The matters raised are such as cannot be appraised by this court in the absence of knowledge of the facts which were before the court in the trial of the case.

The motion is overruled.  