Case ID: tex-crim_102/html/0315-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "MORROW, Presiding Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Joe Paetzold v. The State.
    No. 9506.
    Delivered November 25, 1925.
    Manufacturing Intoxicating Liquor — Recognizance Defective — Appeal Dismissed.
    Where the recognizance on appeal is defective, the cause must be dismissed. Under Title 10 C. C. P. 1925 the appeal may be reinstated upon the filing of a new recognizance or appeal bond within fifteen days from the order of dismissal.
    Appeal from the District Court of Roberts County. Tried below before the Hon. A. R. Ewing, Judge.
    Appeal from a conviction for manufacturing intoxicating liquor, penalty one year in the penitentiary.
    
      Umphries, Mood & Clayton, for appellant.
    
      Sam D. Stinson, State’s Attorney, and Nat Gentry, Jr., Assistant State’s Attorney, for the State.
   MORROW, Presiding Judge.

The offense is the unlawful manufacture of intoxicating liquor; punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for one year.

The State has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on account of an insufficient recognizance. Appellant’s counsel concedes that the motion is good. The appeal is therefore dismissed. However, it may be reinstated within fifteen days by the filing of a new recognizance or appeal bond in accord with Title 10, C. C. P. of 1925.

Appeal dismissed.