RUTHERFORD v. STATE.
(No. 3465.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
March 24, 1915.)
1. Criminal Law <§=>1102 — Statement oe Facts — Striking erom Record.
A statement of facts, not approved and filed within the time allowed by law, will be stricken from the record on motion.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Dec. Dig. <§=>1102.]
2. Criminal Law <§=>1114 — Review—Motion to Quash — Ineormation.
In the absence of a statement of facts, the court can only pass on the motion to quash the information.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2918, 2921; Dec. Dig. <§=> 1114.]
3. Indictment and Ineormation <§=>110 — Sueeiciency — Language oe Statute.
An information for unlawfully practicing medicine without having registered a certificate as required by law, following the language of the statute, was sufficient.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Indictment and Information, Cent. Dig. §§ 289-294; Dec. Dig. <§=>110.]
Appeal from Wilbarger County Court; J. B. Copeland, Judge.
J. S. Rutherford was convicted of unlawfully practicing medicine, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
C. C. McDonald, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
HARPER, J.
Appellant was prosecuted and convicted of the offense of unlawfully practicing medicine without having registered his certificate as required by law, and prosecutes an appeal to this court.
[1] The original transcript showing that the judgment of conviction was entered prior to the convening of the court, and other incon- sistemcies and inaccuracies ’appearing in the transcript, on motion of the Assistant Attorney General, the clerk of the county court was required to make out and file a new transcript herein, and from it it is apparent that the statement of facts was not approved and filed within the time allowed by law. Therefore the motion of the Assistant Attor*1051ney General to strike it from tlie record must be sustained.
[2, 3] In the absence of a statement of facts there is but one question we can pass on, and that is the motion to quash the information. The information follows the language of the statute, and the court properly overruled the motion to quash it.
The judgment is affirmed.