
    ARMSTRONG v. STATE.
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Feb. 4, 1914.
    Rehearing Denied March 11, 1914.)
    Criminal Law (§§ 1092, 1099) — Appeal-Bill op Exceptions and Statement op Facts — Time por Filing.
    Where a bill of exceptions and the statement of facts are not filed within the 90 days after adjournment allowed by statute, and there is no showing why it was not done, they cannot be considered.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2803, 2829, 2834-2861, 2866-2880, 2919; Dec. Dig. §§ 1092, 1099.]
    Appeal from District Court, Shelby County; W. C. Buford, Judge.
    Henry Armstrong was convicted of violating the local option law, and. he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Stephenson & Stephenson, of Center, for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
    
      
      For other oases see same topic ana section NUMBER in Deo. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep’r Indexes
    
   DAYIDSON, J.

Appellant was convicted of violating the-local option law; his punishment being assessed at one year’s confinement in the penitentiary.

Court adjourned on September 6,1913. The record was certified by the district clerk on 20th of December, 1913, and filed in this court on 24th day of December, 1913. The statement of facts and bills of exception were filed in the trial court on December 22d. This was 2 days after the clerk had made out the transcript and forwarded it, and 2 days prior to its being filed in this court, and 116 days after the adjournment of court. Under the decisions, this statement of facts comes too late, and cannot be considered. There is nothing to show the failure to file the statement of facts arose from no fault of the defendant. The bills of exception were filed in the trial court on December 22d, which was also 116 days after adjournment of court. None of these papers were filed within the 90 days required by the statute, and no showing made why it was not done; therefore they cannot be considered. The record, in the absence of these matters, presents no reversible error, or none that can be considered.

Therefore the judgment will be affirmed.  