
    TERRY v. STATE.
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    May 14, 1913.
    Rehearing Denied June 11, 1913.)
    Cbiminal Law (§ 1092) —Appeal—State - ment of Pacts.
    Where the order of the county court overruling accused’s motion for new trial allowed Mm 20 days from adjournment to prepare and file bills of exception and a statement of facts, bills of exception and a statement of facts filed subsequently , thereto cannot be considered.
    TEd. Note. — Por other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§, 2803, 2829, 2834r-2861, 2919; Dec. Dig. § 1092.]
    Appeal from Mitchell County Court, A. J. Coe, Judge.
    J. M. Terry was convicted of violating the prohibition law, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    John B. Howard, of Midland, for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
    
      
      For other oases see same topic and section NUMBER in Deo. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep’r Indexes
    
   PRENDERGAST, J.

Appellant was convicted of a misdemeanor for violating the prohibition law in Mitchell county and the lowest penalty assessed against him.

The term of court at which he was convicted adjourned on Pebruary 8, 1913. In the order overruling the motion for new trial appellant was allowed 20 days from adjournment to prepare and file bills of exception and a statement of fact. None of his bills of exception, nor his statement of facts, were filed .until 30 days after the court adjourned. Therefore neither his bills nor his statement of facts can be considered by this court. Durham v. State, 155 S. W. 222.

Nothing is presented which we can con-' sider, in the absence of a statement of facts and bills of exception. The judgment is therefore affirmed.  