
    SKINNER v. STATE.
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Nov. 29, 1911.)
    1. Criminal Law (§ 1104)—Appeal—Record —Statement of Facts.
    Where an original statement of facts was sent to the Court of Criminal Appeals, instead of being incorporated in the transcript, it could not be considered.
    [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2776, 2885, 2886; Dec. Dig. § 1104.]
    2. Criminal Law (§ 1116)—Appeaio-Indict-mbnt—Regularity.
    Where the original indictment did not accompany the transcript, and the indictment as copied in the record did not disclose any irregularity, an objection that the indictment was a mutilated instrument, because it consisted in part of a piece of paper, cut from another and different instrument, and pasted on the face of the indictment, could not be considered.
    [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 2924; Dec. Dig. § 1116.]
    3. Indictment and Information (§ 11) — Filing—Time—Indorsement.
    Where a bill of exceptions showed that the indictment contained in the transcript had been on file in the county clerk’s office at the proper time and in the proper manner, but that the clerk had neglected to mark it “Filed,” it was not subject to exception for that reason, but the court properly directed the clerk to mark it filed as of the date it was filed in fact.
    [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Indictment and Information, Cent. Dig. §§ 6^-75; Dec. Dig. | 11.]
    Appeal from Sabine County Court; T. R. Smith, Judge.
    Alonzo Skinner was convicted of violating the local option law, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    J. H. MeGown and Goodrich & Lewis, for appellant. 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
    
   DAYIDSON, P. J.

Appellant was convicted of violating the local option law.

The statement of facts is not incorporated in the transcript, but is sent up in a separate document, and we suppose, by the file mark of the county clerk being upon the same, that it is the original statement of facts filed in the court below. Under our statute and the decisions of the different courts, this statement of facts cannot be considered.

The first bill of exceptions recites that, before appellant announced ready for trial, he moved to quash the indictment on the ground that said indictment consisted of two instruments, or a portion of two instruments, pasted together—that is to say, that the alleged indictment has a separate piece, cut from another and different instrument, pasted on the face of said indictment, supposedly to be used and read as a part of the indictment; that the indictment in its present state was a mutilated instrument, because it consisted of parts of two separate instruments, pasted one upon the other; that by reason of this condition of the indictment it was insufficient in law and void, because not in compliance with the terms of the statute; that, by reason of the condition of the indictment, defendant does not know who pasted said instruments together, nor by what authority the pasting was done. This is in no way verified by the record. The original instrument does not accompany the transcript. The indictment as copied in the record does not disclose any irregularity, but appears to be in ordinary form.

The second bill of exceptions recites: “After the state and defendant had both announced ready for trial, and after defendant had been arraigned, and had pleaded guilty, defendant excepted to the indictment upon the grounds that the same had not been filed in the county court. Defendant excepted to the indictment upon this ground, and asked the court to dismiss the case upon the ground that the court had no jurisdiction to try the ease, on the account that the indictment had not been filed in the county court.” After the court examined the transcript in the case, finding the same was a proper one and was filed by the clerk of the court on the 29th of March, 1911, he overruled defendant’s exception and ordered the county clerk to file the indictment back as of date March 29, 1911, the date of its reception by him. Whereupon the clerk in open court did indorse upon the back of the indictment the following: “By order of the Court. Filed March 29, 1911. W. R. Hyden, Co. Clk.” Exception was reserved to this. We are of opinion there is no merit in this matter. The bill shows that the indictment in the transcript had been on file in the county clerk’s office at the proper time and in the proper manner, but that the clerk had neglected to mark upon the indictment that it had been filed. This matter is without merit.

In the absence of the statement of facts, the other questions suggested for revision cannot be intelligently reviewed. As the record is presented to us, the judgment will be affirmed.  