
    LEE v. STATE.
    (No. 4969.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    April 10, 1918.)
    Cbiminal Law <&=o1087(2) — Appeal — Filing Statement op Facts and Bills op Exception — Record.
    A statement of facts and bills of exceptions in a misdemeanor case in the county court having no official stenographer must be filed in term time or within 20 days thereafter, and, if filed after adjournment of court, the record must show the order of the court duly entered extending the time within which the filing might be made; otherwise, the statement of facts and bills of exception will be stricken on the Attorney General’s motion.
    Appeal from Guadalupe County Court; J. B. Williams, Judge.
    George Lee, convicted of receiving stolen property under the value of $50, appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Greenwood & Short, of 'Seguin, for appellant. E. Schweppe, Co. Atty., H. M. Wurtz-bach, and J. M. Woods, all of 'Seguin, and E. B. I-Iendrieks, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   MORROW, J.

Appellant was convicted of a misdemeanor, receiving stolen property under the value of $50. His prosecution was in the county court of Guadalupe county, which adjourned on the 3d day of February, 1918. No order granting permission to file the statement of facts and bills of exception after adjournment is found in th'e record. These appear to have been filed on the 26th day of February, 1918. The state, through the Assistant Attorney General, has filed a motion to strike them out, because not filed during the term.

This court has held uniformly that a statement of facts and bills of exceptions in a misdemeanor case in the county court having no official stenographer must be filed in term time or within 20 days thereafter, and if filed after adjournment the record must show the order of the court duly entered extending the time within which the filing may be made. Durham v. State, 69 Ter. Cr. R. 71, 155 S. W. 222; Chaney v. State, 62 Tex. Cr. R. 67, 136 S. W. 482; Whitaker v. State, 62 Tex. Cr. R. 36, 136 S. W. 1072; Morris v. State, 63 Tex. Cr. R. 375, 140 S. W. 775; Farrell v. State, 64 Tex. Cr. R. 200, 141 S. W. 535; Hall v. State, 70 Tex. Cr. R. 240, 156 S. W. 644; Mueller v. State, 61 Tex. Cr. R. 544, 135 S. W. 571; Mosher v. State, 62 Tex. Cr. R. 42, 136 S. W. 467; Hamilton v. State, 65 Tex. Cr. R. 508, 145 S. W. 348. See Vernon’s C. C. P. p. 823. Following these authorities, the motion of the state must be sustained.

The information does not appear to be subject to the criticisms of appellant made in h'is motion to quash. Absence of bills of exceptions and statement of facts leaves nothing further to review.

It is therefore ordered that the judgment of the lower court be affirmed.

PRENDERGAST, J., absent 
      (gc^For other oases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     