
    POWELL v. STATE.
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    March 4, 1914.)
    1. Criminal Law (§ 1099) — Appeal—Statement of Facts — Time foe Filing.
    On appeal from the county court, a statement of facts filed within 20 days after adjournment could not be considered, where no order was entered allowing the filing after adjournment.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Crimnial Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2866-2880; Dec. Dig. § 1099.]
    2. Ceiminal Law (§ 1097) — Appeaj>-Record —Matters Presented for Review.
    The overruling of a motion for a new trial on the ground that the verdict and judgment were not sustained by, and were contrary to, the evidence was not reviewable in the absence of a statement of facts.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2862, 2864, 2926, 2934, 293S. 2939, 2941, 2942, 2947; Dee. Dig. § 1097.]
    3. Criminal Law (§ 1090) — Appeal—Reservation of Grounds of Review — Exceptions.
    Alleged errors in excluding and admitting evidence could not be reviewed, where no bills of exception were reserved to the court’s rulings.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2653, 2789, 2803-2822 '2S25-2827, 2927, 2928, 2948, 3204; Dec. Dig. § 3090.]
    Appeal from Freestone County Court; R. L. Williford, Judge.
    J. W. Powell was convicted of unlawfully obstructing a public road, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    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 unlawfully obstructing a public road; his punishment being assessed at a fine of $25.

The statement of facts contained in the record was filed within 20 days after adjournment of the court; but the record does not contain an order allowing the filing of the evidence after the term of court adjourned. The certificate of the clerk shows that there was no order entered at all allowing the filing of the statement of facts after adjournment of court. Therefore, under numerous decisions, the evidence cannot be considered. In the absence of a statement of facts, there is nothing that can be considered. The motion for new trial alleges that the verdict and judgment are not sustained by the evidence, but contrary to it. Of course, without the evidence, we cannot review this question. Grounds Nos. 1 and 2 allege that the court erred in overruling objections to the testimony of certain witnesses. These matters cannot be considered, because bills of exception are not reserved, at least are not found in the transcript. Another ground alleges the court erred in refusing to permit the defendant to prove certain facts by the witness Bailey. This is not verified by bill of exceptions, and cannot be considered. The fourth ground alleges that the court erred in refusing to permit the defendant to prove by another witness, who was road overseer, certain facts. This matter is in the same condition as the others, and cannot be considered, because bill of exceptions is not presented.

As the record is presented to us, the judgment must be affirmed.  