
    ROMANO v. STATE.
    (No. 3335.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Nov. 18, 1914.)
    1. Criminal Law (§ 1099)—Appeal—State-ment oe Facts.
    A statement of'facts, not filed until four months after the adjournment of the term of court at which defendant was convicted, could not be considered on appeal.
    [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2866-2880; Dec. Dig. § 1099.]
    2. Criminal Law (§ 1099)—Appeal—Presen-tation for Review—Refusal of Instruction.
    An assignment of error, complaining of the refusal of a requested instruction, could not be considered on appeal, where no statement of facts was filed in time.
    [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ • 2866-2880; Dec. Dig. § 1099.]
    
      Appeal from District Court, El Paso County; Dan M. Jackson, Judge.
    George Romano was convicted of embezzlement, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    L. A. Dale and O. C. McDonald, both of El Paso, for appellant. 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, J.

Appellant was convicted of embezzlement; Ms punishment being assessed at two years’ confinement in the penitentiary.

The statement of facts was not filed until nearly four months after the adjournment of court. Appellant files an affidavit in regard to this matter, the substance of which is that he had only employed counsel to defend Mm in the trial court, not having in contemplation his services to perfect an appeal. When court adjourned he did not file pauper’s affidavit in regard to securing statement of facts, because he says his friends had agreed to secure money sufficient to obtain the statement of facts. The money was not obtained until after the 90 days had elapsed. After this time a statement of facts was prepared and presented to the district judge, who approved the same as being correct, which statement of facts was filed practically four months after the court adjourned. Under the decisions of this court the statement of facts cannot be considered.

A special charge was requested, which was refused. Without the statement of facts, we are unable to determine whether there was error in refusing to give this charge. Therefore, we cannot revise this question.

The writer desires to say that if the facts had been presented in time to be considered, it is a very serious question whether appellant should have been convicted of the charge of embezzlement, and in fact the writer does not believe he should. have been convicted.

As the matter is presented, we are of opinion that the judgment must be affirmed; and it is accordingly so ordered.  