
    FLOWERS v. STATE.
    (No. 8200.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas'.
    April 30, 1924.
    Rehearing Denied Oct. 29, 1924.)
    1. Criminal law <&wkey;>!092(5) — Bill of exceptions, complaining of misconduct of jury, should be filed during term in which trial took place.
    Bill of exceptions, complaining of misconduct of jury, should be filed during term in which trial took place.
    2. Criminal law <&wkey;>1092(9) — Act of filing bills of exception after date to which time for filing was extended held to preclude their consideration, in absence of excuse for delay.
    Where court extended time for filing bill of exceptions to certain date, appellant, in filing them after such date, preclúded théir consideration in the Court of Criminal Appeals, in absence of excuse for delay.
    
      On Motion for Rehearing.
    3. Criminal law <&wkey;1092(l6), i099(13) — Presentation of statement of facts and bills of exception to judge not tantamount to tiling.
    Presentation of statement of facts and bills of exception to judge who tried case for his approval is not ipso facto tantamount to filing of such document.
    4. Criminal law <&wkey;IO90(l9) — Assertion of alleged errors in sworn motion for new tria! insufficient, in absence of biiis of exception or statement of facts.
    Assertion of alleged errors in sworn motion for new trial is not sufficient to bring them before Court of Criminal Appeals, in absence of some complaint by bills of exception, or in absence of statement of fact filed during term time, when error can be presented by such statement.
    Appeal from Dallas County Court at Law; W. N. Coombes, Judge.
    Jim Flowers was convicted of unlawfully carrying a pistol, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Claude M. McCallum; of Dallas, for appellant.
    Shelby S. Cox, Cr. Dist. Atty., and Wm. McCraw, Asst. Cr. Dist. Atty., both of Dallas, and Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.
   MORROW, P. J.

The offense is the unlawful carrying of a pistol; punishment fixed at a fine of $200 and confinement in the county jail for ¿t period of 7 months.

The term of court in which the judgment was rendered terminated on May 23, 1923. On June 21st following, the court extended the time for filing the bills of exception until 30 days after June 23d. The bills of exception were filed on August 3d.

One of the bills complains of the misconduct of the jury. Such a bill of exception, to authorize consideration, should have been filed during the term in which the trial took place. All of the bills should have been filed within the time designated in the court’s order of extension, namely, within 30 days from June 23d. That they were filed subsequent to this time precludes their consideration upon this appeal, there being nothing in the record explaining or excusing the delay.

A recital of the evidence is not necessary. Suffice it to say that it is sufficient to support the verdict.

The judgment is affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

LATTIMORE, J.

Appellant seems to be under the impression that we did not-consider his statement of facts in connection with our original opinion. He is mistaken. The statement of facts was filed within the time allowed by law and was considered by us.

We regret that we could not and cannot consider the bills of exception. One who has been convicted of crime and wishes to perfect his appeal, may not take bills of exception to the judge and leave them with him an indefinite. time, and until the time has expired, and be held to have complied with the law. The presentation of statement of facts and bills of exception to the judge who tried the case for his approval, is not ipso facto tantamount in law to the filing of such documents. See section 219, Branch, Ann. P. G. Such appears to have been the course of the appellant in the instant case. He took his bills of exception to the judge and left them with him and they were kept by him until the time had expired.

The setting up of the alleged errors in the motion for new trial, even though such motion be sworn to, is not sufficient to bring them before this court for review in the absence of some complaint by bills of exception, or, if the matter be one which could be here presented by some statement of fact filed during the term showing error, in the absence of such statement same could not be considered.

The motion for rehearing will be overruled. 
      <&wkey;I<’or other cases see same topic and KEi -N UMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     