Case ID: sw_277/html/1118-06.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "MORROW, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Joe PAETZOLD v. STATE.
    (No. 9506.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Nov. 25, 1925.)
    Appeal from District Court, Roberts County; W. R. Ewing, Judge.
    Umphres, Mood & Clayton, of Amarillo, for appellant. Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., of Austin, and Nat Gentry, Jr., Asst. State’s Atty., of Tyler, fo'r the State.
   MORROW, P. J.

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 15 days by the filing of a new recognizance or appeal tonel in accord with title 10, C. C. P. of 1925.