Case Name: Jim Pope v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1912-01-20
Citations: 65 Tex. Crim. 51
Docket Number: No. 1303
Parties: Jim Pope v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 65
Pages: 51–55

Head Matter:
Jim Pope v. The State.
No. 1303.
Decided January 20, 1912.
Rehearing granted January 24, 1912.
1. —Carrying Knuckles—Recognizance—Reinstatement.
Where a sufficient recognizance was filed after the dismissal of the appeal, the same is reinstated.
2. —Same—Conflict of Evidence.
Where the evidence is conflicting, the matter is a question of fact for the jury.
3. —Same—Evidence—Credibility of Witness.
Where, upon trial of carrying brass knuckles, the defendant sought to prove facts which showed motive on the part of the witness who testified against him, and that the latter desired the conviction of the defendant and had provoked a former difficulty with the defendant, etc., the same should have been admitted to show the bias, interest, and prejudice of the witness and thus attack his credibility.
4. —Same—Evidence—Animus—Credibility of Witness.
Upon trial of unlawfully carrying brass knuckles the defendant should have been permitted to .show the animus of a State’s witness against the defendant, to attack his credibility, by showing that the latter objected and interfered when parties sought to separate the defendant and prosecutor, etc.
5. —Same—Evidence—Character of Wound.
Where, upon trial of unlawfully carrying brass knuckles, there was a conflict in the evidence as to whether defendant struck the prosecutor with brass knuckles or whether the prosecutor used the same on the defendant, it was reversible error not to permit the defendant to show the character of wound and bruises which were inflicted upon him by the prosecutor; the defendant denying that he used any brass knuckles.
Appeal from the County Court of Eastland. Tried below before the Hon. E. A. Hill.
Appeal from a conviction of unlawfully carrying brass knuckles; penalty, a fine of $100.
The opinion states the case.
J. R. Stubblefield, for appellant.
C. E. Lane, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

Opinion:
DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.
This appeal must be dismissed for want of sufficient recognizance. There is what purports to be a recognizance or appeal bond, which is totally insufficient. For want of a sufficient recognizance the appeal is dismissed.
Dismissed.