Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

97 Tex. Crim. 96

260 S.W 188

Weaver v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Decided March 12, 1924

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · decided 1924-03-12

<p>1. —Possessing Intoxicating Liquor for the Purpose of Sale — Bills of Exception — Rule Stated.</p> <p>It is imperative that bills of exception be filed within the time prescribed by law, otherwise this court is without authority to consider them, and no reason appearing in this record for the failure to prepare and cause the filing of the bills within the time which was granted by the court below they cannot be considered.</p> <p>2. —Same—Sufficiency of the Evidence — Companion Case.</p> <p>The facts are practically the same as were embraced in a companion case, and the evidence being sufficient to support the conviction the judgment is affirmed.</p> <p>3. —Same—Rehearing—Filing Bills of Exception.</p> <p>An extension order was entered on May 21, in which appellant was specifically given thirty days from the fourth of June. No other extension order appears in the record. Manifestly thirty days from the fourth of June would expire on the fourth of July, and the bills of exception in the record appearing filed at a later day cannot be considered.</p>

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently May 1949

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1924-03-12

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*98 ON REHEARING.

¶2 April 9, 1924.

LATTIMORE, Judge.

¶3 In support of his . motion appellant insists that we erred in holding his bills of exception filed too late and we have again examined the record. The trial court adjourned on April 7, 1923. An order granting sixty days from the adjournment of court in which to file bills of exception and statement of facts was made. Our former opinion was mistaken in stating that this expired on June 2nd, but the mistake was immaterial. An extension order was entered on May 21st in which appellant was specifically given thirty days from the 4th of June. No other extension order appears in the record. Manifestly thirty days from the 4th of June would expire on the 4th of July. Each of the bills of exception in the rceord appears filed at a later date. We regret that under the uniform holdings of this court and the statutes of this States we are barred from considering such bills of exception.

¶4 No other matter being complained of in the motion, same will be overruled.

¶5 Overruled.

/97/texcrim/96 · .json · Public domain