
    ADAMS v. STATE.
    (No. 7746.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    May 23, 1923.
    Rehearing Denied June 20, 1923.)
    1. Criminal law <@=>I 104(2) — Appeal dismissed where caption to transcript fails to show when court convened or adjourned.
    Where caption to the transcript fails to show when court convened or adjourned, motion to dismiss the appeal will be sustained.
    2. Criminal law <§=>1099(13) — Original statement of facts must he forwarded to appellate court.
    
    A record in a felony case showing a statement of facts signed by the attorneys and approved by the trial judge, but not appearing to have been filed in the trial court, is insufficient, as in felony cases the original statement of facts must be forwarded to the Court of Criminal Appeals.
    3. Criminal law <@=31092(11, 16) — Bills of exception must be approved and filed below.
    Bills of exception not approved by the trial judge nor filed in the trial court are insufficient.
    On Motion for Rehearing.
    4. Criminal law @=>1092(7) — Bills of exception held too late.
    Where bills of exception were prepared and submitted to the trial court at a date after the expiration of 30 days after adjournment of the trial court, they were too late, and, even if signed by the trial judge and filed as of that date, they could, not be considered on appeal.
    
      5. Criminal law <®=>1092(10) — 'Trial court’s approval of bills of exception not compelled by certiorari.
    The Court of Criminal Appeals will not by certiorari compel trial judges to approve bills of exception.
    Appeal from District Court, Cooke County; O. R. Pearman, Judge,
    Sam Adams was convicted of an offense, and appeals.
    Appeal dismissed.
    J. A. Carlisle, of Sherman, for appellant.
    R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   HAWKINS, J.

The caption to the tran script fails to show when court convened or adjourned. The Assistant Attorney General has filed a motion asking the dismissal of the appeal because of such omission. The motion must be sustained. See Lowrey v. State, 92 Tex. Cr. R. 311, 244 S. W. 147; Mandosa v. State, 88 Tex. Cr. R. 84, 225 S. W. 169; Davis v. State, 88 Tex. Cr. R. 183, 226 S. W. 532.

We find in the record a statement of facts signed by the attorneys and approved by the trial judge on March 4, 19?3, but it is nowhere made to appear that it was ever filed in the court below. In felony cases the original statement of facts must be forwarded to this court. There are also what purport to be several bills of exception in the record. None of them bear the approval of the trial judge, and the transcript does not show any of them to have been filed in the trial court. We call attention to these matters in order that any errors or omissions may be corrected if appellant -should desire the reinstatement of his appeal.

The appeal is dismissed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

LATTIMORE, J.

In a motion for rehearing and‘as a part thereof appellant asks for a certiorari to compel the trial court to approve and order filed certain bills of exception which appear in the record without fiaving been filed'in the court below and without the approval of the trial judge. This court does not niake the law, but earnestly tries to ascertain if same has been followed in the trial of each case coming before it. In this case it appears that the district court of Gooke county convened on October 29, 1922, and under the statute could continue in session but eight weeks. This manifestly would require the court to adjourn not later than December 24th. Our law gives 30 days thereafter for the filing of bills of exception. An examination of the bills found in this record show that they were prepared and submitted to the trial court for approval as of date the 22d of February, 1923. This would necessarily, under the statute, make them too late, and, even if signed by the trial judge as of that date, and filed as of that date, this court would be powerless to consider them. Nor does this court by certiorari compel trial judges to approve bills of exception. It thus appearing that nothing could come from the .granting of the writ of certior.ari or the rehearing herein, appellant’s application for both will be denied. 
      ^=0For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     