
    Frank Wilder v. State.
    No. 2191.
    Decided January 8, 1913.
    1. —Carrying Pistol—Statement of Facts.
    Where, upon appeal from a conviction of a misdemeanor, the statement of facts was not properly filed, the same could not be considered.
    2. —Same—Recognizance—Punishment.
    Where the alleged recognizance did not state the punishment found by the jury, the same was insufficient.
    
      3.—Same—Special Charges—Statement of Facts.
    In the absence of a statement of facts, the refusal of requested charges cannot be considered on appeal.
    Appeal from the County Court of Leon. Tried below before the Hon. W. D. Lacey.
    Appeal from a conviction of unlawfully carrying a pistol; penalty, a fine of $100.
    The opinioin states the case.
    No brief on file for appellant.
    
      C. E. Lane, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.
   DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was convicted of unlawfully carrying a pistol, his punishment being assessed at a fine of $100.

The statement of facts cannot be considered for two reasons—first: there was no order entered of record allowing twenty days after adjournment of court in which to file statement of facts. The ease is a misdemeanor, tried in the County Court. The second reason is, if there had been an order, the court adojurned twenty-two days before the statement of facts was filed. For these reasons the statement of facts is not in condition to be entertained on appeal.

It is very doubtful whether the recognizance is sufficient on account of its peculiar verbiage, inasmuch as it does not state the punishment. It does state, however, that defendant was fined not less than one hundred dollars. The verdict of the jury and judgment of the court based thereon fixes the punishment at exactly one hundred dollars. We. are of opinion, if it was necessary to decide that question, that the recognizance is not sufficient. The statute requires that the punishment found by the jury must be stated. The jury assessed the punishment at a fine of one hundred dollars.

The first ground of the motion contends that there was material error committed by the court in refusing to submit defendant’s special instructions. This cannot be considered in the absence of the evidence. The other grounds relate tó the sufficiency of the evidence, arid cannot be considered for the same reason.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.  