
    TOLIVER v. STATE.
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    March 6, 1912.)
    Criminal Law (§ 1092) — Bill of Exceptions — Statement of Pacts — Preparation —Time.
    It was improper for the court to allow more than 20 days after the adjournment of the term in which to file a bill of exceptions and statement of facts, and a bill and statement filed more than 20 days after the term, but within 30 days allowed, could not be considered.
    [Ed. Note. — Por other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2834-2S01, 2919; Dec. Dig. § 1092.]
    Appeal from Waller County Court; J. D. Harvey, Judge.
    Mattie Toliver was convicted of theft, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    A. G. Lipscomb and W. J. Poole, for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.’
    
      
      For other eases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dee. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep’r Indexes
    
   PRENDERGAST, J.

By proper affidavit and information the appellant was charged with theft of property under the value of $50. The county court, in which the case was tried, convened on May 1, 1911, and adjourned for the term on May 20, 1911. On May 4th the cause was tried, appellant convicted and fined $50 and 30 days in jail.

The court improperly allowed 30 days after adjournment for the filing of a statement of facts and bills of exceptions. There is a purported bill of exceptions and a purported statement of the facts filed 26 days after the adjournment. The state objects to the consideration of either of these matters, because not filed in time as required by law. This contention is correct, and the statement of facts and bill of exceptions will not be considered. Misso v. State, 135 S. W. 1173; Blackshire, 33 Tex. Cr. R. 160, 25 S. W. 771; Dement v. State, 39 Tex. Cr. R. 276, 45 S. W. 917; Williams v. State, 35 Tex. Cr. R. 391, 33 S. W. 1080; Irby v. State, 34 Tex. Cr. R. 283, 30 S: W. 221; Mosher v. State, 136 S. W. 467; Griffin v. State, 136 S. W. 778; Moore v. State, 136 S. W. 1067; Gentry v. State, 137 S. W. 696.

The court gave a correct charge which would be applicable to a state of proof that could be made under the complaint and information. The questions attempted to be raised cannot be considered without a statement of facts.

The judgment is affirmed.  