Case ID: tex_32/html/0477-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Walker, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Peterson & Fitch v. The State.
    Í—A partnership can not be indicted by their firm name; the indictment should be against the members as individuals.
    2—When an appeal against the State has been dismissed by this court for want of a sufficient recognizance, the appellant, it seems, can not be allowed to perfect his recognizance in the court below, and then prosecute a new appeal to this court. The second appeal will be dismissed.
    Appeal from Grimes. Tried below before the Hon. M. Hart Davis.
    A former appeal having been dismissed in this court because the recognizance did not recite any offense known to the laws of the State, the defendants, by leave obtained from the District Court, gave a new recognizance there, nunc pro tuno, in proper form, and brought up this case on a new transcript.
    
      
      E. B. Turner, Attorney General,
    moves in this case to dismiss the appeal, because:
    1. The same cause was brought here by appeal in 1869, and stood upon the docket of last term Ho. 3201, and the appeal taken in the case was by this court dismissed and finally disposed of.
    2. The effort to cure the defect in the recognizance could not revive the appeal which had been dismissed.
    If the appellants desired to perfect their record, they should, have moved for certiorari, and are not permitted to take their chances upon the transcript, and then undertake to correct after dismissal.
    3. If they could reach this court again at all after the appeal was dismissed, it could only be by error.
    
      J. C. Hutcheson, for the appellants.
   Walker, J.

The appellants were indicted at the Spring-term of the District Court of Grimes county for the year 1868. They were charged with selling intoxicating liquors, in quantities less than a quart, to one E. H. Giezel, without having first obtained license to sell. The defendants pleafi guilty to-the facts, but set up an answer in avoidance of the penalty. The court ruled the answer insufficient to bar the action, and the jury fixed the fine at $100.

We will say here that the indictment was void. The defendants should have been indicted as individuals, and not as a partnership firm. But they took their appeal to this court; their appeal was taken upon an imperfect record, which their counsel insisted was sufficient. This court, on inspection of the record, dismissed the appeal, and they have attempted again to appeal. This can not be done.

The appeal is therefore dismissed and the cause remanded.

Ordered accordingly.