
    MARCH, 1914.
    J. W. Powell v. The State.
    No. 3023.
    Decided March 4, 1914.
    1. —Obstructing Public Road—Statement of Pacts.
    Where, upon appeal from a conviction of unlawfully obstructing a public road, the statement of facts contained in the record was filed 'within twenty days after the adjournment of the County Court, but the record did not contain an order allowing the filing thereof after the term of court adjourned, the same can not be considered on appeal.
    
      2. —Same—Practice on Appeal.
    In the absence of a statement of facts, a complaint that the evidence is insufficient and that the court erred in overruling objections .to the testimony can not be considered on appeal.
    
      3.—Same—Evidence—Bills of Exception.
    In the absence of hills of exception, the exclusion of certain testimony can not he considered on appeal.
    Appeal from the County Court of Freestone. Tried below before the Hon. E. L. Williford.
    Appeal from a conviction of unlawfully obstructing the public roads; penalty, a fine of $25.
    The opinion states the case.
    No brief on file for appellant.
    
      G. E. Lane, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.
   DAVIDSON, Judge.

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 twenty 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 can not 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 can not review this question. Grounds Nos. 1 and 2 allege that the court erred in-overruling objections to the testimony of certain witnesses. These matters can not 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 can not 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 can not be considered because a bill of exceptions is not presented.

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

Affirmed.  