
    BOYD v. STATE.
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Dec. 3, 1913.)
    Criminal Law (§ 1095) — Appeal — Statement of Facts — Time or Filing.
    Bills of exceptions not filed in the trial court in a criminal prosecution until the sixtieth day after adjournment for the term, and after appellant had, within 30 days allowed for filing a statement of facts and bills of exceptions, attempted to extend the time for another 30 days, were too late, and will be stricken on motion.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see -Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 2847; Dee. Dig. § 1095.]
    Appeal from Upshur County Court; W. H. McClelland, Judge.
    Fritz Boyd was convicted of crime, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Warren & Briggs, of Gilmer, for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
    
      
      For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep'r Indexes
    
   PRENDERGAST, P. J.

From a conviction of false imprisonment, appellant prosecutes this appeal.

The term of the county court at which this trial occurred adjourned for the term May 31, 1913. The court at that time entered an order allowing 30 days thereafter to file a statement of facts and bills of exceptions. Within that 30 days he attempted to extend the time for another 30 days. What purports to be a statement of facts and bills of exceptions were not filed in the lower court until on the sixtieth day after the court adjourned for the term. The Assistant Attorney General has made a motion to strike out said purported statement of facts and bills of exceptions because not filed within time.

Almost every week for the last few years this court has uniformly struck out such papers, when filed without an order allowing 20 days or less, or where such papers are not filed, in accoirdanee with such order, within 20 days from the adjournment of the court. It would be a useless task to undertake to collate and cite these various cases. We merely cite Durham v. State, 155 S. W. 222, and cases therein cited. Under the law, this court must of necessity strike out and not consider said papers. Without these,' no question is raised which we can review.

The judgment will therefore necessarily be affirmed.  