
    ARTHO v. STATE.
    (No. 11319.)
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Jan. 4, 1928.
    
      1. Criminal law <§=»1099(6) — Statement of facts, not filed within 90 days from overruling motion for new trial, cannot be considered on ■ appeal (Code Cr. Proc. 1925, art, 760).
    Under Code Or. Proc. 1925, art. 760, allowing 90 days for filing statement of facts after overruling motion for new trial, where motion for new trial was overruled May 17, statement of facts filed August 17 cannot be considered on appeal.
    2. Time <§=»9(8) — Statement of facts filed August 17, 1927, where motion for new trial was overruled May 17, 1927, held not within 90 days (Code Cr. Proc. 1925, art. 760).
    Where motion for new trial was overruled May 17,1927, statement of facts filed August 17, 1927, was not within 90 days allowed by Code Or. Proc. 1925, art. 760, for filing statement of facts on appeal.
    Appeal from District Court, Deaf Smith County; Reese Tatum, Judge.
    Paul Artho was convicted of possessing intoxicating liquor for purposes of sale, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    
      W. H. Russell, of Hereford, for appellant.
    A. A. Dawson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for tlie State.
   LATTIMORE, J.

Conviction for possessing intoxicating liquor for purposes of sale; punishment, one year in tlie penitentiary.

Appellant’s motion for new trial was overruled on May 17, 1927. The statement of facts shows to have been filed on August 17, 1927. The statute (Code Cr. Proc. 1925, art. 760) allows 90 days for the filing of Statement of facts, after the overruling of the motion for new trial. The statement of facts was filed two days too late. Same cannot be considered.

There are three bills of exception. Each has been carefully considered. We find nothing in any calling for discussion here. None present error.

The judgment will be affirmed. 
      ®^>Eor other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     