What you write is more or less true. First note that it is not enough to assume that $f(x,t)$ is differentiable at $x_0$ (for (almost) all $t$), we need that there is a neighorhood $(x_0 - \varepsilon, x_0 + \varepsilon) =:I$ such that $f(\cdot, t)$ is differentiable in $x$ for all $x \in I$ and (almost) all $t \in A$, where the "exceptional null set" must not depend on $x$.
The assumption $|\partial f/\partial x (x,t)| \leq g(x)$ only makes sense in this setting, otherwise we could only require $x_0$ instead of $x$ and the proof also needs this assumption (see below).
Now, let $h_n \to 0$ with $h_n \neq 0$ for all $n$ and w.l.o.g. with $x_0 + h_n \in I$ for all $n$. Let
$$
F(x) := \int_A f(x,t) \, dt \text{ for } x \in I,\\
G(x) := \int_A \frac{\partial f}{\partial x}(x,t) \, dt \text{ for } x \in I.
$$
Here, the integral defining $F$ is interpreted as an improper Riemann integral (it is possible that this integral does not exist as a Lebesgue integral), but the integral defining $G$ is interpreted as a Lebesgue integral. If $t \mapsto \frac{\partial f}{\partial x}$ is Riemann integrable over every compact subinterval of $A$ (for example, if it is continuous in $t$), then it can also be interpreted as an improper Riemann integral, at least if we assume that the dominating function $g$ is (improper) Riemann integrable.
Observe that the assumptions guarantee that $F,G$ are well-defined. Measurability of $t \mapsto \frac{\partial f}{\partial x}(x,t)$ for each $x \in I$ is implied by the pointwise convergence $$\frac{\partial f}{\partial x}(x,t) = \lim_n \frac{f(x+h_n, t) - f(x,t)}{h_n},
$$
which will also be employed below.
We now have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\left|\frac{F\left(x_{0}+h_{n}\right)-F\left(x_{0}\right)}{h_{n}}-G\left(x_{0}\right)\right| & = & \left|\int_{A}\frac{f\left(x_{0}+h_{n},t\right)-f\left(x_{0},t\right)}{h_{n}}-\frac{\partial f}{\partial x}\left(x_{0},t\right)\,{\rm d}t\right|\\
& \leq & \int_{A}\left|\frac{f\left(x_{0}+h_{n},t\right)-f\left(x_{0},t\right)}{h_{n}}-\frac{\partial f}{\partial x}\left(x_{0},t\right)\right|\,{\rm d}t.
\end{eqnarray*}
Note that the integrands are measurable and that for (almost) all $t \in A$, the mean value theorem yields some $\xi_{n,t} \in I$ (even between $x_0$ and $x_0 +h_n$) such that
$$
\left|\frac{f\left(x_{0}+h_{n},t\right)-f\left(x_{0},t\right)}{h_{n}}\right|=\left|\frac{\partial f}{\partial x}\left(\xi_{n,t},t\right)\right|\leq g\left(t\right).
$$
This shows that the integrands in the integrals are Lebesgue-integrable and dominated by an integrable function. As the integrand in the last integral converges pointwise to $0$ for $n \to \infty$, the dominated convergence theorem yields
$$
\left|\frac{F\left(x_{0}+h_{n}\right)-F\left(x_{0}\right)}{h_{n}}-G\left(x_{0}\right)\right| \to 0,
$$
so that $F$ is differentiable (in $x_0$) with the expected derivative.
$L^1(\mathbb R)$ is complete with respect to the $L^1(\mathbb R)$ norm. You would need to show that $f\cdot\chi_{[−n,n]}$ converges to $f$ in the $L^1$ norm and not just pointwisely. In fact, $\|f\cdot\chi_{[−n,n]}\|_1$ is not even bounded, so the sequence does not converge in $L^1$. It is easier to see the error if you just consider the sequence $\chi_{[-n,n]}$. Each function is $L^1$, but it does not converge with respect to the norm and the pointwise limit of the functions is clearly not in $L^1$.
Best Answer
If $x_n\to x_0$, then for any $a\leq t < x_0, \exists N\in \mathbb{N}$ such that $$ t< x_n \quad\forall n>N $$ and hence $\chi_{[a,x_n]}(t) = 1$ for all $n>N$. Similarly, for $t>x_0, \exists M\in \mathbb{N}$ such that $\chi_{[a,x_n]}(t) = 0$ for all $n>M$. Since the singleton $\{x_0\}$ has measure zero, you can conclude that $$ \lim \chi_{[a,x_n]} \to \chi_{[a,x_0]} \text{ a.e.} $$ and so Dominated convergence applies as you say.