Case ID: tex-crim_92/html/0311-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "HAWKINS, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

George Lowery v. The State.
    No. 6593.
    Decided October 4, 1922.
    Bigamy — Caption—Transcript—Practice on Appeal.
    Where the caption fails to show the date of adjournment of the trial term of the court, the same cannot be considered on appeal; besides, the transcript was delivered to appellant’s attorney, and pot transmitted thru the mails by the district clerk to the clerk of this court, as the law requires, and the appeal must be dismissed.
    Appeal from the District Court of Eastland. Tried below before the Honorable George L. Davenport.
    Appeal from a conviction of bigamy; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary.
    The opinion states the case.
    
      S. W. Pratt, for appellant.
    
      R. G. Storey, Assistant Attorney General, and W. V. Dunnam, county attorney, for the State.
   HAWKINS, Judge.

— Conviction is for bigamy, carrying a penalty of two years in the penitentiary.

Our Assistant Attorney General has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for two reasons: first, because the caption fails to show the date of adjournment of the trial term of court. The necessity for such information is apparent from Mandosa v. State, 88 Texas Crim. Rep., 84, 225 S. W. Rep., 169; Davis v. State, 88 Texas Crim. Rep., 183, 225 S. W. Rep., 532; Williams v. State, 91 Texas Crim. Rep., 115 237 S. W. Rep., 920.

The second ground for the motion is that the transcript was delivered to appellant’s attorney, and not transmitted through the mails by the District Clerk to the Clerk of this Court, as is required by the law. Art. 931, C. C. P., reads, “As soon as a transcript is prepared, the clerk shall forward the same by mail or other safe conveyance, charges paid, inclosed in an envelope, securely sealed, directed to the clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals.” The following cases construing the article just quoted appear to support the State’s second ground for requesting a dismissal of the appeal. Lockwood v. State, 1 Texas Crim. App., 749; Pilot v. State, 38 Texas Crim. Rep., 515; Dyer v. State, 44 Texas Crim. Rep., 78; 68 S. W. Rep., 685.

The appeal is dismissed.

Dismissed.