Jones v. State

<p>1. —Bigamy—Statement of Facts—Bills of Exception.</p> <p>A statement of facts must be prepared and filed within ninety days from the adjournment of the term of court at which the cause is tried, or within ninety days after the motion for new trial is overruled and notice of appeal given in,case the term of court continues for a term longer than eight weeks.</p> <p>2. —Same—Bills of Exception.</p> <p>The statute provides for the filing of bills of exception within thirty days after the same time without any order of court, but authorizes the court to grant longer than thirty days, hut not to exceed ninety days under the same time and terms which the statement of facts can be filed.</p> <p>3. —Same—Statement of Facts—Bills of Exception—Rehearing.</p> <p>Where the case was affirmed because the statement of facts was not -filed in the court below and the hills of exception were filed too late, but on motion for rehearing it was made to appear that these were properly filed, the same are now considered.</p> <p>4. —Same—Indictment—Filing.</p> <p>Where it was claimed that the return of the indictment showed an impossible date, but the record showed that it was properly returned and filed in the lower court on a proper date, there was no error.</p> <p>5. —Same—New Rules of Procedure.</p> <p>Under the new rules of procedure which took effect since July 1, 1913, only such matters as are presented in defendant’s motion for new trial can be assigned as error and considered by this court. Following Gant v. State, recently decided.</p> <p>6. —Same—Sufficiency of the Evidence.</p> <p>Where, upon trial of bigamy, the evidence sustained the conviction, there was no error on that ground.</p> <p>7. —Same—Requested Charge—General Objections.</p> <p>An objection that the court erred in refusing to submit defendant’s special charge No. 1 is entirely too general to be considered; besides, there was no error in the court’s refusal of the same.</p> <p>8. —Same—Bills of Exception—Comparison of Handwriting.</p> <p>Upon trial of bigamy, there was no error in permitting the sheriff to testify about procuring defendant to write copies of a purported letter he had, on the ground that it was written in jail, the same being admitted only for the purpose of comparing his handwriting; besides, the bill of exceptions was defective. Following Ferguson v. State, 61 Texas Grim. Rep., 152, and other cases.</p> <p>9. —Same—Evidence—Bill of Exceptions.</p> <p>Where defendant objected to the introduction of a petition for divorce against his former wife after he had remarried, but the bill of exceptions failed to state the contents of said petition, there was no error; besides, the matter was testified to by defendant himself.</p> <p>10. —Same—Charge of Court—Fabricating Testimony.</p> <p>Where, upon trial of bigamy, defendant claimed as a defense that he had received a letter showing, that his former wife was dead and there was testimony that this letter was a fabrication, yet the court, in his charge, submitted this theory of the defense, and also submitted a full charge on the law as applicable to the facts, there was no error.</p>