
    HUGHES v. STATE.
    (No. 6845.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    May 10, 1922.)
    I. Criminal law <§=>!092(7) — Bills of exceptions not filed within the required time, in absence of satisfactory excuse shown by record, not regarded.
    The failure to file bills of exceptions within the time allowed by law precludes their consideration by the Court of Criminal Appeals in the absence of a satisfactory reason for the delay appearing in the record.
    2. Criminal law <@=>l 144(6) — Venue not made issue in lower court presumed to have been proved in absence of bill of exceptions affirmatively showing failure of such proof.
    In prosecution for burglary, in which there was no i issue made during the development of the case touching the venue, the Court of Criminal Appeals will presume, under Code Cr. Proc. 1911, art. 938, that venue was proved in the absence of bill of exceptions properly signed and allowed by the lower court affirmatively showing that the venue was not proved.
    Appeal from Criminal District Court, Harris County; C. W. Robinson, Judge.
    F. D. Hugb.es was convicted of burglary,, and be appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Rogers & Jones, of Houston, for appellant. E. T. Branch, Cr. Dist. Atty., of Houston, and R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the-State.
   MORROW, P. J.

Conviction is for burglary; punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for a period of four years.

Appellant entered the house of one Mc-Anally and took from it various articles. The entry was made by climbing to the second story of the house and going through a window which opened on the back porch of the house, which window was open at the time. He climbed up the latticework, and in that way pulled himself up on the porch and went in through the window.

The sufficiency of the evidence is not challenged except upon the theory that the venue' was not proved. The court trying the cause was permitted by law to continue in session for more than 8 weeks, and in this instance did so.

Appellant’s motion for new trial was overruled on the 22d day of October, 1921. The bills of exceptions were filed on November 22d, which was 31 days after the motion for new trial was overruled. The law requires that they be filed within 30 days, un-, less there be granted an extension of time, t Appellant obtained an extension of time within which to file the statement of facts. Objection is made by the state of the consideration of the bills. 'The failure to file the-bills of exceptions within the time allowed by law precludes their consideration by this-court in the absence of a satisfactory reason for the delay appearing in the record. In the instant Case we are constrained to sustain the state’s motion to disregard the bills of exceptions. Jarrott v. State, 84 Tex. Cr. R. 544, 209 S. W. 663; Henton v. State, 84 Tex. Cr. R. 606, 209 S. W. 409; White v. State, 85 Tex. Cr. R. 28, 210 S. W. 199; Hart v. State, 86 Tex. Cr. R. 653, 218 S. W. 1054; Farris v. State, 85 Tex. Cr. R. 86, 209 S. W. 665; Martin v. State, 82 Tex. Cr. R. 269, 198 S. W. 149; Castoreno v. State, 82 Tex. Cr. R. 621,. 200 S. W. 1082.

The statement of facts contains no specific statement that the premises were in Harris county. In describing the location of the burglarized premises and other localities giving the residences of witnesses, the references are to certain streets and numbers and the names of the localities. There was no issue made during the development of the case touching the venue. Appellant requested a peremptory instruction, but it contained no suggestion that it was upon the ground of the failure to prove the venue. In article 938, Code Or. Proc., it is declared that this court shall presume on appeal that venue was proved “unless such matter was made an issue in the court below, and it affirmatively appears to the contrary by a bill of exceptions, properly signed and allowed by the judge of the court below.” The record in the instant case is without such bill of exceptions. Cases giving application of the statutes mentioned are numerous.” McGlasson v. State, 38 Tex. Cr. R. 351, 43 S. W. 93, and other cases listed in 2 Vernon’s Tex. Crim. Stat. p. 899; Scott v. State, 42 Tex. Cr. R. 607, 62 S. W. 419.

Finding no error presented justifying a reversal, the judgment is affirmed: 
      (¡feaFor other oases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     