
    WILLIAMS v. STATE.
    (No. 6526.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Jan. 18, 1922.
    Rehearing Granted Feb. 15, 1922.)
    1. Criminal law <@=>l104(2) — Appeal dismissed where caption of transcript does not state date of term.
    Where the caption of transcript on appeal does not state the day of convening and adjourning of the term, appeal will be dismissed.
    2. Criminal law <@=>1092(8), 1099(7) — Statement and bill of exceptions held filed beyond 90-day extension.
    Where the recital in the application for an extension of time in which to file statement of facts and bills of exceptions showed that court adjourned on May 7, 1921, filing of bills of exceptions and statement of facts on August 6, 1921, was not within the 90 days provided, and appeal will be dismissed.
    On Reinstatement of Appeal.
    3. Criminal law <@=>892 — Verdict returned to be copied by clerk without change.
    Where an original verdict read: “We as a juror find the defendant guilty of murder and his imprisonment to be (eleven) years in state penitentiary. A. L. Green, as Foreman,” it should have been copied by the clerk as returned and not changed to read, “We, the jury, find defendant guilty of murder and his punishment to be eleven years in state penitentiary. [Signed] A. L. Green, Foreman.”
    4. Criminal law <@=>881 (I) — Verdict sufficient if intention can be gathered from inspection.
    Where no difficulty is had in arriving at the intention of the jury from an inspection of the verdict, the verdict is sufficient.
    5. Criminal law <@=>1184 — Where sufficient verdict improperly copied by clerk into judgment, it wili be reformed and affirmed.
    Where the verdict as copied into the judgment was not copied as returned, but the verdict as returned was sufficient to support judgment of conviction, under Vernon’s Ann. Code Or. Proc. 1916, art. 938, .it will be. reformed and affirmed.
    Appeal from District Court, Cottle County; J. H. Milam, Judge.
    Sam Williams, alias Sad Sam, was convicted of murder, and he appeals.
    Judgment reformed and affirmed.
    W. J. Arrington and W. A. Williams, both of Paducah, for appellant.
    R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   HAWKINS, J.

Conviction is for murder. Punishment, eleven years in penitentiary.

The appeal must be dismissed. The caption to the transcript shows the court to have convened October 11, 1920, and to have adjourned November 6, 1920. The charge of the court bears heading, “April Term, A. D. 1921,” and file mark of “April 15, 1921.” The verdict appears to have been received and judgment entered at the April term of court, 1921. The only bill of exception was not filed until August 6, 1921, and tbe statement of facts likewise shows to have been filed on that date. It might be assumed that the ease was tried at a term of court subsequent to that indicated by the caption, but, if so, the date of convening and adjourning thereof nowhere appears in such manner as-may be considered. The necessity therefor is made manifest by our opinion in Mandosa v. State, 88 Tex. Cr. R. 84, 225 S. W. 169, and Davis v. State, 88 Tex. Cr. R. 183, 225 S. W. 532.

We would call attention, however, to the fact that an application was made for an extension of time in which to file statement of facts and bills of exception. A recital in tbe application is to tbe effect that court adjourned on May 7,1921. If the term of court at wjiich appellant was tried did in fact adjourn on May 7, 1921, and a corrected transcript should show this, then it appears that the statement of facts and bill of exception were not filed in the lower court until after the expiration of 90 days from adjournment. See Romero v. State, 72 Tex. Cr. R. 105, 160 S. W. 1193; Maxwell v. State, 69 Tex. Cr. R. 248, 153 S. W. 324.

For the reasons given, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

On Reinstatement of Appeal.

At a former day of this term the appeal was dismissed. An amended transcript having been filed supplying the omissions in the original transcript, the appeal is reinstated. The term of court at which the trial was had adjourned May 7, 1921. The statement of facts and bill of exception were not filed in the lower court until after the expiration of 90 days from adjournment, hence cannot be considered.

The question is raised in this court that the verdict returned by the jury is insufficient to support the judgment of conviction. The verdict as copied in the judgment reads:

“We, tbe jury, find tbe defendant guilty of murder and bis punishment to be eleven years in state penitentiary.
“[Signed] A. L. Green, Foreman.”

It is shown that the original verdict read:

“We as a juror find the defendant guilty of murder and bis imprisonment to be (eleven) years in state penitentiary.
“A. L. Green, as Foreman.”

The clerk should have copied the verdict as returned, and not made changes therein; but if the verdict as actually returned will support tbe judgment, tbe case ought not to be reversed, but tbe judgment corrected and an affirmance entered. In section 840,. Branch’s Crim. Law, is the general rule as to construction of verdicts, as follows:

“Verdicts should receive a liberal construction, and if finding of jury can be reasonably ascertained, the verdict should be held good as to form. The object should be to ascertain •the intention of the jury.”

The soundness of the rule is supported by the cases collated under the section referred to. We find no difficulty in arriving at the intention of the jury from an inspection of the verdict. We discuss the matter no further, but refer to the many cases cited by Mr. Branch, and those collated under article '770, Vernon’s O. O. P., notes 6, 8, 13, 17, and 19.

The judgment is reformed, and entered on the verdict as returned into court (article ’938, Vernon’s C. O. P.) and as so reformed, •the same is affirmed. 
      <g=>For other eases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     